*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

I'm guessing the R&D costs are wrapped up in that figure.

Probably, but that should decrease over time as these costs are recouped.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Also, the technical training of the mechanics and operators is additional cost, but I wouldn't guess that would be wrapped up in the $123 million stated cost.

[OngBonga]

*$123m of course

[Poopadoop]

*$123m of course

It's not even the most expensive one.

https://militarymachine.com/top-35-m...litary-drones/

Northrop Grumann X-47B: $405 million per unit

Also, if a common jet figher costs $90m per unit, it wouldn't surprise me an unmanned, remote-control drone costs significantly more per unit.

[OngBonga]

They have shortages of medicines in Iran, people are dying because they can't import meds. Explain to me how that is keeping them from being a military power. It's punishing the people so they'll turn against their gov't.

USA have shown that they are not averse to simply forcing regime change. If USA are trying to create a civil war in Iran, well they've been doing a remarkably shit job of it. I'm not buying the idea that USA's goal is to turn the Iranian people against their government, forcing an overthrow. If that was their aim, they would have succeeded by now. I'm of the opinion that the point of economic sanctions is to stifle their economic and military competitiveness, and that'll be because of Israeli and Saudi lobbying. The Saudis in particular couldn't give a fuck about the Iranian people, the Iranians are Shiites, so from Saudi Arabia's pov, they don't want to see a new government in Iran, they just want to see Iran suffer. Israel, idk what their problem with Iran (and by extension Shia Islam) is.

Who says they aren't? They've done it before in Iran, you think they've stopped now?

Well if it's happening, it's very clandestine and very unsuccessful.

[Poopadoop]

USA have shown that they are not averse to simply forcing regime change. If USA are trying to create a civil war in Iran, well they've been doing a remarkably shit job of it. I'm not buying the idea that USA's goal is to turn the Iranian people against their government, forcing an overthrow. If that was their aim, they would have succeeded by now. I'm of the opinion that the point of economic sanctions is to stifle their economic and military competitiveness, and that'll be because of Israeli and Saudi lobbying. The Saudis in particular couldn't give a fuck about the Iranian people, the Iranians are Shiites, so from Saudi Arabia's pov, they don't want to see a new government in Iran, they just want to see Iran suffer. Israel, idk what their problem with Iran (and by extension Shia Islam) is.

That might be part of it, the pressure from their allies to be dicks. But, by and large the US wants to be able to trade with Iran, to invest in it and make money. When Mossadegh kicked them and the British out after WWII, they took him out and put in the Shah.

Then, when the Shah was losing popularity and looked like he was on his way out, they backed the Ayatollah, because he promised them he'd install a democracy. Then once he got into power he flipped them off. It was the ultimate troll.

Well if it's happening, it's very clandestine

As it's always been. I'm not saying they are doing it for a fact. I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to foment insurrection though.

and very unsuccessful.

There's been a lot of protests in Iran in the last decade, revolutionary spirit is pretty strong from the Iranians I've talked to. Of course, now that Trump has assassinated one of their leaders they have a bigger enemy they'll be more interested in fighting against.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes. We only have 1 number of the cost, though.
Also, the production is a limited run, so the amount that can be recouped is not the same as a retail good.

[OngBonga]

I still think $123 is a gross overestimate, and accounts for government corruption.

[OngBonga]

That might be part of it, the pressure from their allies to be dicks. But, by and large the US wants to be able to trade with Iran, to invest in it and make money.

Again, this is simplistic. Iran has the third largest proven oil reserves on the planet, so yeah USA will have an interest in trade with Iran. However, there's no hurry. USA are allied to a nation with even more oil... Saudi Arabia. And they are attempting to put into place a puppet government in the nation with the largest reserves... Venezuela. Maybe the idea is to stifle Iran's economic output so there is more oil for them to come for when Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are drying up.

Then, when the Shah was losing popularity and looked like he was on his way out, they backed the Ayatollah, because he promised them he'd install a democracy. Then once he got into power he flipped them off. It was the ultimate troll.

I doubt America care about the Sunni and Shia (I can't say that without without of Sunny and Cher) situation. But they will have an overall strategy, and for whatever reason, that involves squeezing the balls of Iran. Obama, for whatever reason, decided he wanted better relations with Iran. Trump came along and said nah, Saudi Arabia and Israel are my allies.


Like I say, Middle Eastern geopolitics is way beyond my comprehension. I have no idea what game they're playing. I just think that USA are winning.

As it's always been. I'm not saying they are doing it for a fact. I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to foment insurrection though.

There's probably low level infiltration in every country on the planet. America certainly have interests here in the UK. And no doubt we have interests there. They were concerned about a Corbyn government here, I assume they were worried how it might impact on our NATO commitments and foreign policy. Funnily enough, that's the only appeal Labour really have to me, because I don't like our foreign policy. I'd prefer us to be neutral, but if we are going to be active in geopolitical matters, then I'm glad we're allied to USA.

There's been a lot of protests in Iran in the last decade, revolutionary spirit is pretty strong from the Iranians I've talked to. Of course, now that Trump has assassinated one of their leaders they have a bigger enemy they'll be more interested in fighting against.

Trump just assassinated the very person who was crushing that revolutionary spirit. I'm unconvinced that the Iranian people who want a change in government are angry with Trump about this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Poopadoop]

Trump just assassinated the very person who was crushing that revolutionary spirit. I'm unconvinced that the Iranian people who want a change in government are angry with Trump about this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You keep bringing this up. Not sure where you heard it, but it's about as true as the story that Saddam had WMDs. Sulemani led the special forces, they have nothing to do with internal repression.

Also, lol that the hundreds of thousands of people marching at his funeral were coerced into it. What, the army went around a hundred thousand houses and told them 'hey you, get going, we need you at the funeral.'

[Poopadoop]

De-escalation by assassination!

[OngBonga]

You keep bringing this up. Not sure where you heard it, but it's about as true as the story that Saddam had WMDs. Sulemani led the special forces, they have nothing to do with internal repression.

I'll dig more into this myself. It's not out of the question that I've been duped by propaganda, but then again so might you have been.

Certainly Saddam did not have the WMDs that we claimed he did, I'm not disputing that. As I understand it, Saddam wanted to sell his oil in Euros, and that's why he was attacked. USA couldn't admit this publicly, as it would be admitting that this is all about economics and not security.

As for the Iranian attacks, it seems that the missiles they launched were deliberately light in payload, that they were only intended to look good in the night sky while not actually causing an inevitable response by USA. If that's true, if no US citizen is killed or injured, then it will be interesting to see how Trump handles this. Iran are certainly afraid of further escalation, if they weren't then they would've hit America hard.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Lololol.




Hmm... I can't embed video using the GUI. Let's see if this works.

[oskar]

This guy probably saw Parnes on Maddow and was like: if people like barrel chested men with bad hair going public against the advice of their legal council, they'll love this! Hold on, let me just get comfy. Done! Are you shooting?

https://twitter.com/rfhyde1/status/1...256055808?s=20

[oskar]

A Warren supporter said I probably also believe rapists because I said I doubt that Bernie said the thing. Another one told me I'm perpetuating a system of white slavery by defending him. It pains me to say this, but the GOP doesn't have the monopoly on retards like I thought it did.

[boost]

A Warren supporter said I probably also believe rapists because I said I doubt that Bernie said the thing. Another one told me I'm perpetuating a system of white slavery by defending him. It pains me to say this, but the GOP doesn't have the monopoly on retards like I thought it did.

lolfuck.

People are so weak minded. Warren is down in the polls and stirred the shit.

Bernie probably did express cynicism about the electability of a woman in this cycle. That is a legit concern and is completely different from the question of should a woman be president, or could one execute the duties of the office. Any intelligent interlocutor would understand that it's a legitimate concern, even if they don't share it, and also understand that it's not something that would play well in public.

When you look at it like that, Warren's outting of the comment is super cynical and self serving.

[oskar]

Even Morning Joe immediately called it what it is, but I am legitimate concerned that a good chunk of these outrage-culture fake feminists might actually get triggered enough to stay home for the general because of inane shit like this. And it's still in the news cycle. Vanity Fair published another article on it today. This truly is 2016 all over again when it comes to the media completely losing focus on the issues that matter.

In impeachment news: two of the lawyers on Trumps defense team were also representing the late Jeffry Epstein. If we're talking outcomes, I'm pretty stoked about the prospects here!

[MadMojoMonkey]

Trump is not on trial the way we usually think of a criminal trial.
It's not, strictly speaking, a legal event at all, and not even a part of the criminal justice system.
Despite his previous public statements, he has no right to due process, because he's technically not accused of being a criminal.
He's accused of violating the Constitution.

Impeachment is not a prosecution, despite the Republican Senators using language that implies as much. Calling for the House to send the Articles of Impeachment in a "timely manner" reflects an accused criminal's right to face their accusations in a timely manner.
It's a smoke screen to confuse the court of public opinion.

There is no appellate process following impeachment. Whatever ruling the Senate makes is final.
Impeachment is a legislative branch process.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over impeachment matters, despite the Chief Justice ruling over the Senate impeachment proceedings. Note, the Chief Justice has only an advisory role in this matter. The Chief Justice has no authority in impeachment.

[oskar]

Trump is not on trial the way we usually think of a criminal trial.
It's not, strictly speaking, a legal event at all, and not even a part of the criminal justice system.
Despite his previous public statements, he has no right to due process, because he's technically not accused of being a criminal.
He's accused of violating the Constitution.

Impeachment is not a prosecution, despite the Republican Senators using language that implies as much. Calling for the House to send the Articles of Impeachment in a "timely manner" reflects an accused criminal's right to face their accusations in a timely manner.
It's a smoke screen to confuse the court of public opinion.

There is no appellate process following impeachment. Whatever ruling the Senate makes is final.
Impeachment is a legislative branch process.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over impeachment matters, despite the Chief Justice ruling over the Senate impeachment proceedings. Note, the Chief Justice has only an advisory role in this matter. The Chief Justice has no authority in impeachment.

I don't understand much about the actual process... as does no one as far as I could gather. I struggle to understand in what reality it would be considered good optics to hire Ken fucking Starr and two of the lawyers who represented Epstein to do anything at your impeachment trial. How could this ever be a good thing? I mean, I'll take it, but what the fuck!

[oskar]

How the fuck is this even legal? 1h47m - watch till 1h50m.

[Poopadoop]

How the fuck is this even legal? 1h47m - watch till 1h50m.

This is hilarious... i'd vote for all of them.

[MadMojoMonkey]

IDK. Everything I know about impeachment, I've basically learned in the past few weeks through repeated google searches.

The start of the impeachment trial involves the entire Senate taking an oath, which includes being impartial in the trial.
If Senate leaders can go on the record saying they will not follow their oath to be impartial in the impeachment trial, then what even matters?
They've basically said, "We can't find the President corrupt, because we're corrupt. QED."

With all the open lies and misdirection working like a charm, why not Ken Starr?

I mean, how is Giuliani remotely credible as anything but a shyster?

Typical transcript of a Giuliani interview:
Reporter: Did you do [it]?
Rudy: No. How could you accuse me of that?
Reporter: So what did you do?
Rudy: I did [It].
Reporter: So you did [it]?
Rudy: No. How could you accuse me of that?


I've seen it multiple times. How is he not publicly discredited?
If Trump's supporters will accept Giuliani, why not Starr?

[oskar]

Fair enough.

https://youtu.be/7AHbCvdPbd8?t=30

I wouldn't vote him off the house either. Looking back, the biggest mistake of the entire Trump admin probably was not to just put cameras all over the White House, DOJ and Mar-a-Lago and turn it into a 24h reality TV show. Could you imagine the ad sells!

Today the DOJ also released the comically redacted Mueller documents that they were required to release under the freedom of information act. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...secret-memos-4
link to the actual docs at top of the page. 174 pages, almost entirely redacted.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Goddamn. 3-day weekends are the best. We should do this every week.
(America took Monday off for Martin Luther King Jr. Day)

If Trump's reelection campaign is rooted in a single promise of 3-day weekends every week, it'd win my vote.

Not that anyone's voting for Biden, anyway.
Stupid Democrats pushed everyone worth voting for out of the race. All we have left is grandpa A and grandpa B, neither of which is appealing to any swing voters.

Trevor Noah said it well when he said the Democrats are going to lose because their platform is to "beat Trump." It's an anti-platform. They don't stand for anything; they stand against something. Trump's vision of America may not appeal to them, but they're not offering any alternative vision. All they offer is "not Trump."


Sorry, but I'd rather have a leader with a strong vision that I disagree with than a leader with no vision to agree with.


What was the quote from a while back, "Strong convictions, weakly held." I had to let it sink in, but I think I support it. You have to trust yourself and what you know. You have to be willing to stand up for what's right as you see it. You have to be willing to learn and change what you know, and to adjust your convictions as you grow.

I'd rather have a leader who at least stands for things, rather than against things.

[CoccoBill]

Are you now describing the policy platforms of the candidates or the media discussion about them?

[MadMojoMonkey]

If a candidate adds 3-day weekends to their platform, I'm in.

The Democrats running for 2020 had some good ideas from interesting people, but in the end all the interesting people have been pushed out of the race (I'm not sure if it's the media or the DNC that does the pushing).

What's Biden's platform? A tongue in cheek indictment of Trump.
From joebiden.com:
"We are in a battle for the soul of America.
It’s time to remember who we are. We’re Americans: tough and resilient. We choose hope over fear. Science over fiction. Truth over lies. And unity over division. We treat each other with dignity, we leave nobody behind, and we give hate no safe harbor.

We are the United States of America. And together, there is not a single thing we cannot do."



Sure, Sanders has a ton of stuff to stand on, but he's lost this race many times before. What's different, now?

[CoccoBill]

Was just pretty surprised to see that comment from you. What the candidates speak publicly during the campaign trail is based on carefully selected talking points, and what you actually see is the media-mangled edit of them. Both the campaigns and the media seem to have decided, over the course of several past elections, that the general public is too dumb or busy to care about actual policies, so they stick with catchphrases instead. Trump got elected on MAGA, lock her up and build the wall. I suppose you could call those "a vision", but those are as clear as his defined policies get. Anything he says is self-confliting and vague, which is sort of brilliant in the sense that it forces/allows the listener to inject whatever message they want to hear into it. In contrast, here's some stated policies by the dems:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans
https://berniesanders.com/issues/
https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/
https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

Now, everyone is of course free to agree or disagree with the policies, but to say that they stand for nothing except "not Trump" is not accurate. It sounded more like you're basing your decision purely on public media discourse, not on researching what the candidates are proposing and what they stand for.

[oskar]

What Coco said. I think you're thinking of some people's representation of the candidates platforms, not on what they're actually about. Bernie is like a broken record on what his policies are: No-compromise medicare for all, Green New Deal, get out of foreign wars and cut military spending and tax the shit out of billionaires and wall street. He has bills ready to go on all of those. Nobody is really wasting their time talking about Trump as far as I saw.

Bernie is polling badly on how electable people think he is. He's actually polling pretty well if you poll voters directly and not on their opinion on other voters.

Biden sucks, he shouldn't even be able to run on a democratic platform. Warren is no bueno for anything but treasury, but she's done anyway, so no use in breaking her shit down.

I think a lot of people are starting to see through the transparent smear campaigns that corporate lefties run against Bernie, and the polls reflect it. I'm rock hard over the fact that the NYT and CNN will have to put Bernie in their headlines now that he's leading national polls when they put him behind Klobuchar as of yesterday.
I think he has a very good chance to run away with it this time.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/banditelli/statu...07600999960579

XD

[oskar]

Look at their stupid faces!

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/statu...457015296?s=20

[MadMojoMonkey]

I didn't cite any media aside from Joe Biden's election page.

What part of Biden's vision is NOT a tongue-in-cheek indictment of the current administration?


I don't see where you've gotten the idea that I'm paying any attention to American news media. I've repeatedly (though not recently) derided it as antithetical to forming an unbiased world view. The problem is that our news agencies are incentivized to keep our attention, not to convey truth to us. The problem is that it's our responsibility to incentivize them in our best interests, but we, as a populace, do not do so. The result is a poorly written melodrama akin to daytime soap operas.

Another problem is that I can't get anywhere by watching both sides and trying to find the middle ground, between the bias. There's just so much bias and hyperbole that I have no idea where to even start to unravel it all. Whereas international news sources tend to be more trustworthy when reporting on American politics. I find they have a slightly negative slant against all things America, but that's easy to see through, IMO.


Warren or any other Dem doesn't belong in this conversation except to convince me there's any hope their name will be on the November ballot.
Otherwise, their platforms are not relevant to the election.
My point is that anyone with a positive platform has been pushed out of the race.
Sanders def. has a positive platform, the same one he's ran on and failed to win multiple times before.
The only people left in the race have either an anti-platform (Biden) or are historically a notorious loser in this contest (Sanders).



BTW. Only half-joking about the 3-day weekends. They're the best. We should do that more often. Maybe every week is too often, but more would be better, IMO.

[oskar]

Sanders has an insane uphill battle to climb. Nobody in the political establishment on either side wants him. They live off of corporate donations, the MIC and nepotism. A candidate who doesn't take money from super pacs, wants to overturn citizens united and shrink the military budget is bound to get pummelled by both sides. If you think this was ridiculous:

https://fair.org/home/washington-pos...s-in-16-hours/

This will get turned to 11 if he becomes the nominee.

The reason I think he'll make it is because I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that what has to happen is not gradual change, or a lesser of two evils. If you don't want your children to die in a literal fire tornado, watch california become an island state, and lose any pretense of democracy, there needs to be a political revolution.

I don't think that realization was there in 2016. Hillary was very popular and there was a post-Obama sugar high. You just had a black president, now you're going to have one with a vagina, and and all that kumbaya bullshit while you're continuing the same mass destruction of nations and environment that the US has continued since the cold war.

I really think this one is different, and I hope I'm right. I think Sanders would be instrumental in leading a global movement to cut fossil fuel dependence in a timely fashion, and that is by far the most important issue.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd vote for Gabbard, Buttigieg, or AOC happily (I don't think AOC was running, but I'd vote for her if she were).

If Sanders is on the ballot, I'll vote for him.
I don't think he can win, but I think he has vision. I even like some of his vision.

What's Warren's platform? Basically it's Sanders' platform with some stuff that you'd think they probably both agree on, but just prioritize differently.
Either one is fine with me, but neither is attracting any Rep voters.
No one the Dems had in the running was attracting any Rep voters that I could tell, but I don't really look too deeply into early polls.

If it's between Trump and Biden, I'll abstain.

I'm not voting for no-vision Biden, and I'm not voting for isolationist Trump.



Of course, this is all a distraction from the deeper issue. It's not the politicians fault that they tell us what we want to hear. That's just their job. The real fault is that we down here on the ground are in our little camps. Reps don't talk to Dems on our level, so why would our politicians alienate themselves from us, their constituents by acting differently?

I try to engage in political conversations, but it's both too easy and too difficult. It's too easy to get a conversation going, but near impossible to keep it civilized and productive. I can count the number of times someone changed their mind in one of those conversations on one hand. At least during the conversation. Some things take time to sink in, obv.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'd vote for Gabbard, Buttigieg, or AOC happily (I don't think AOC was running, but I'd vote for her if she were).

Gabbard's real, Buttigieg is a fake and a fraud. A 3 dollar bill. He's a made up politician.

If Sanders is on the ballot, I'll vote for him.
I don't think he can win, but I think he has vision. I even like some of his vision.

Why do you have the sentiment that he can't win?

You sound like this guy

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/o...-campaign.html

What's Warren's platform? Basically it's Sanders' platform with some stuff that you'd think they probably both agree on, but just prioritize differently.

No. Main difference is Sanders' actually walks the walk, Warren will constantly backtrack with a modicum of pressure. Oh, and she lies. A lot.

Either one is fine with me, but neither is attracting any Rep voters.

Bernie actually beats Trump nationally by the widest margin of any other current Democratic hopeful.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-6250.html

Has done so for quite some time now.

Keep in mind that Bernie is this popular in spite of the fact that everybody and their mother smears him on a literal daily basis.

A beautiful example:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...in-iowa-110159

Read the headline, then look for the headline in the article. See for yourself if anything makes sense. Also read how Buttigieg is reffered as.

No one the Dems had in the running was attracting any Rep voters that I could tell, but I don't really look too deeply into early polls.

If it's between Trump and Biden, I'll abstain.

I'm not voting for no-vision Biden, and I'm not voting for isolationist Trump.

As will everyone else, guaranteeing four more years of The Donald. The Donald's base will happily show up. The other people? Will feel cheated again and forced into submission. I hope they have a safe word.

Of course, this is all a distraction from the deeper issue. It's not the politicians fault that they tell us what we want to hear. That's just their job. The real fault is that we down here on the ground are in our little camps. Reps don't talk to Dems on our level, so why would our politicians alienate themselves from us, their constituents by acting differently?

That's the main difference between a cookie cutter politician and Bernie. He has actually walked this walk for decades now. He doesn't tell you what you want to hear; Buttigieg does that. Warren will back off of policies the moment her advisers tell her to, she has no spine. A spineless gut will not get shit done in the white house.

Bernie, however, has his finger on the pulse of the actual problems that the USA has. He is also called the "Amendment King". He actually gets shit done.

I try to engage in political conversations, but it's both too easy and too difficult. It's too easy to get a conversation going, but near impossible to keep it civilized and productive. I can count the number of times someone changed their mind in one of those conversations on one hand. At least during the conversation. Some things take time to sink in, obv.

I literally called for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket since the start of this election. That ticket will be unbeatable, despite what the paid pundits keep telling you on a daily basis.

[Jack Sawyer]

LOL Impeachment!

"But you can't have any witnesses"

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

It's so sad it's funny

[oskar]

Those three could hardly be more diametrically opposed. I think you thinking Buttigieg is electable and naming him in the same breath as Gabbard and AOC is a symptom of you not following the election much.

AOC is too young to run. She's a very realistic front runner for 2024 or 2028. My personal favorite would be Ilhan Omar, and not just because of how much it would trigger retards, but also because I genuinely think she would make a great president.

You hit the nail on the head with Warren. Warren is a reactionary. Bernie's platform looked super popular, so she adopted it. She has no moral guidance whatsoever, and will do whatever she thinks is most likely to benefit herself.

I think the focus should never be to changes someone's mind. You win by mobilizing like minded people. I'm more open that some Trump voters could be won than I was a year ago, but to make it the focus could backfire spectacularly.

[oskar]

I think not voting for whoever the democratic candidate is, would be a huge mistake. Biden is an awful, awful candidate, but here's what 2 term Trump will accomplish: another supreme court nominee, which means: Roe V Wade gets overturned, Flores agreement sacked. That opens the door for a nation wide abortion ban and systematic torture of migrant children.

Naming judges is the most powerful thing a president does, and the more fiercely partisan judges he puts up, the less likely it is for the US to return to normalcy without a violent revolution.
As bad as Biden would be, he would stop the bleeding and he's unlikely to go 2 terms anyway.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've never said "electable" about Buttegieg. I said I'd vote for him happily.
I've only seen him speak a couple times, but he did say things which appeal to me, like being pro abortion clinics and anti death penalties.
I can't honestly say I know if he has a compelling vision for America, but I kinda do doubt that pasty-faced white guy wants to really change the status-quo all that much.

Yeah... Gabbard and AOC are actually inspiring people to listen to, and putting Buttegieg in that list was folly.
He's more of an "OK, this can't be all bad, right?"
Where they're more of a, "God damn she's gonna get shit done!"

Fair criticism of my point to call me out on that.

I've not heard of Ilhan Omar, yet. I'll get on it.


No. The focus isn't to change someone's mind.
And while you're right that mobilizing like-minded people is the final step at decision time, it's not part of the process to decide.
The focus should always be to change your own mind, IMO.
It's just so hard to remain inquisitive and humble when someone starts preaching nonsense, I find.


***
I don't agree with much of Trump's vision for America, but at least he has one.
If the majority believe in him, then that's cool. It's their right to self-govern, and as messed up as it is, America does not have a lock down on corruption by any means.

If America "needs" a violent revolution, then that's what I want for America. I sure hope we don't need that, but it's not Trump's doing when you put it that way. It's America's doing. Trump represents a popular ethos. He's not acting in a vacuum. Even amidst Ukraine and obstruction of justice charges that are basically black-and-white cases at this point - if the recent documents scrawled on napkins are legit - even amidst all that, his supporters still support him.

I get it that it's tempting to call them all meat-heads, but they're ~1/2 of America, land of innovation... is America half-full of meat heads? Or is it possible that we're (you and I) the ones who are out of touch with the pulse of our times?

If the Democratic Party is so far out of touch with the American people that it needs to fall completely before the Republican party can even face a real challenge, then that's democracy in action.

America has weathered far worse than some reactionary judges. FFS, the first SCOTUS ruled that the person who wrote the constitution didn't know what he was talking about as far as the extend of the power afforded to SCOTUS. Reactionary judging is a foundation of American jurisprudence.

[oskar]

I've only seen him speak a couple times, but he did say things which appeal to me, like being pro abortion clinics and anti death penalties.

That's more substantial than anything I've heard him say. He's the: we don't need policies, we need a core directive from which we will then derive our policies - guy. Also I'm open to taking your super-pac's money if you have any suggestion on how our core directive should translate to policy!
I'm paraphrasing.

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/st...017567232?s=20

[Poopadoop]

Agree with Mojo the US media is pretty much unwatchable if you're trying to get a clear picture of things. I can only watch it for entertainment and even then the bias makes me cringe at times.

I think people vote for lots of reasons, many of which are just weird. An example of a weird reason is just how entertaining the candidate is. Even if you're only laughing at him, Trump is by far the most fun politician to watch on TV. Hillary made me want to gouge my eyes and ears out when she spoke.

There also seems to be a strong distrust of the corrupt establishment motivating many people. Trump ran against the establishment, but since he's been pres, has been ironically the most corrupt and self-serving pres ever. Doesn't mean his supporters see that, though, b/c they're watching Fox which does nothing but suck Trump's dick. Imagine having that soundtrack in your head every day for four years and how completely brainwashed you'd be by then. That's about 1/3 of Americans right there. Another 1/3 is watching the other side and being brainwashed in the other direction (though to be fair, the other side has an easier job because the facts seem to be much closer to matching their worldview that Trump is an awful pres).

While Bernie would be a good candidate imo for reaching out to anti-establ. voters, his downfall is he's going to continue to get called a communist and in the US you'd be better off being a baby raper than a commie in terms of electability.

Not sure Biden will beat Trump but do think he has the best chance. He might be establishment, but if even 10% of the nihilism of Trump's presidency sinks in with people, they'll see that the establishment might suck, but it's still better than the Orange Republic.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The problem with Bernie is that he really, really appeals to my sense of hand-off governance. That's just not a popular theme in the US.

That one headline oskar posted in all those headlines where it said, "Bernie Sanders pledges the US wont be No. 1 in incarceration. He'll need to release lots of criminals."
That's a real punch in the crotch.
The fact that the "land of the free" is No. 1 in incarceration already means we've put vast amounts of people in prisons that no one else in the world would consider criminals.
We're stripping productive citizens from our work-force and costing ourselves out the wazoo to pay for their cells, food, guards, etc.
It's absolutely hurting our family values, and hurting our economy.
Yet, people just pretend the busted system is fine.
People pretend non-violent offenders don't deserve families 'cause that will incentivize other potential offenders to not offend... despite the abounding evidence that doesn't work, has never worked, and we're screwing ourselves.

I don't get it.

I don't get that people feel like they should have the right to place land-mines on their property to deter burglary.
I don't get that people think it's OK to shoot someone running away from you.
I've heard it multiple times, though. It's like the Geneva Conventions only count at war, but not on a Sunday evening in your neighborhood.

I really don't get it.

As if saying, "Sorry. I was wrong, and it affected you. That's my bad. Can I make it up to you?" is somehow not among the strongest things you can do as a person.

People... so incomprehensible.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't have a Twitter account, so the Twitter links aren't useful to me.
Sorry, oskar.

I've been torn over whether it's more rude of me to ask you to change your ways just for me or to continue not really getting your entire point.

I decided to choose the middle ground and tell you that I don't use Twitter, and allow you to do whatever you want with that info.

[oskar]

That is some serious boomer territory. Twitter is literally just RSS with a reply function.

Bonus: if you @tweet a b-list celebrity they're almost definitely going to reply.

[oskar]

That's the clip from the tweet I posted earlier. I think the NYT is taking it off YT. The twitter one stays up.

The other one was the NYT editorial board reading their top 4 candidates which were: Warren, Klobuchar, Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg. Booker was already out at that point and Klobuchar at 3%. They ended up with a double endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar.

[boost]

Oskar, what's happening in this clip? What the fuck was the deal with that aggressive eye roll from the woman?

[MadMojoMonkey]

You can call me a boomer, but I'm not one, so don't care. It just makes me think you have the brain worms.

Whereas I find hipsters to be the most annoying people as a group because they're almost all a bunch of pretentious jerks.
So if you want to get under my skin about it, go with hipster.

I mean, it's apt, so I can't really get too upset about it, but it is ironic that I have this one hipster trait when I otherwise think hipsterism is just one way that ego gets to be hilarious."


Though it would, like, literally make my head explode to, like, change the meaning of boomer to mean, like, "anyone older than I am who is talking like an old person. lol"
Because if there's one thing that drives an old person crazy it's the living language moving ahead of what we thought we knew.


***
Aggressive eye roll.

I know, right?

Why did the editor even include that?
Is this that "communist" slant that oskar was talking about?

[oskar]

Oskar, what's happening in this clip? What the fuck was the deal with that aggressive eye roll from the woman?

badly disguised lizard people

[oskar]

queue oppo dump in 3...2...

[oskar]

queue oppo dump in 3...2...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie...o-black-slaves

lol they got nothing

[MadMojoMonkey]

Hipster, not boomer.
My distaste has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with being pretentious.
Being interrupted by a ringing phone drives me crazy.

My parents are boomers.


I guess every company is trying to get us addicted to their product/service. For me, Twitter is very effective at that aim. I have to just accept that I express addictive behaviors when I have a cell phone in my pocket or a Twitter account. I lack the self control to have access to those things and remain a good, productive person.

Not saying anyone else is bad or unproductive, FYI. Just saying this is why I've made my choice.

***
The Sanders clip is standard Bernie stuff.
Who's not endeared by an older person saying, "I don't handle Bullshit well?" That's a hallmark of a good leader, IMO. They can identify BS and they have no patience for it. Reminds me of my dad, and I often think my own diplomacy in the face of BS is only dragging out the nonsense.

[oskar]

Don't call me boomer, that's my father's name!

Ok, boomer.

[OngBonga]

What are people between boomers and millenials called?

[boost]

My view is that Biden and Sanders have the best chance of closing the divide in the country. But their risk profile is vastly different. Under Biden, things might get slightly worse, or a bit more than slightly better-- with Sanders, things will get drastically better or quite a bit worse.

Warren and Buttegieg both satiate different wings of the left, but do nothing to reverse the country's division.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"What are people between boomers and millenials called?"
Gen X.

[OngBonga]

Gen X? That's my generation and I've never heard that term before.

Hipsters were the most annoying people as a group, until "the left" emerged in recent times.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How can you never have heard the term Gen X? Is it a US thing?
I googled it and the top few lists of generation names have Gen X on them, but sometimes there's another name next to Gen X that I've never heard of. (Thirteeners, Boomer Busters, etc.)

Is one of those more familiar to you?


Some of those lists call Millenials Gen Y and post-milleneals Gen Z, but I thought Gen Y was a name that never quite stuck for those in the late Gen X period.

[OngBonga]

How can you never have heard the term Gen X? Is it a US thing?

I assume so. And no, I don't recall ever using another term either.

[oskar]

At least one Warren supporter I follow shared this explaining why he thought it reflected badly on Bernie. idk if the NYT also produces this, but if they did produce it, they thought it would made Bernie look bad.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Lol. All of that was from the '70's, yeah?

They're digging back over 40 years to find that stuff.
Does that tacitly state that he's not done anything all that bad in the last 40 years, then?
lol.

Gotta give 'em credit for the deep dive, I guess.

[OngBonga]

One day, someone will be going for the job as PM in the UK and his opponents will dig up some old shit about him, like cocaine and hookers. And the reply will be "so fucking what? I've lived."

He, she, or [other] will get my vote.

[boost]

[COLOR=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]In that interview, Sanders pointed to a worker-owned asbestos plant in Lowell, Vermont, as an example of the kind of worker-owned enterprise that he envisioned in the economy of the future.

I feel like his endorsement of asbestos is about as bad as his hyperbolic analogy involving chattel slavery. Both are poor form with the benefit of hindsight, but both took place in the 1970's.[/COLOR]

[Poopadoop]

Trump tweeted something today about how he only hired Bolton as head of NSA because he begged him for a job, like it was a pity hire.

Dude, you're the fucking POTUS, not some guy who owns a deli and lets his aunt work the till. The people you hire matter. So don't hire people just to be nice and make them feel better about themselves. You fucking idiot.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'll understand if he got Bolton to take a pay cut on account of how much he's begging for the job and all.

Wouldn't even be surprised at that as a business move. Wouldn't expect otherwise from Trump.

[OngBonga]

Brexit Day tomorrow.

Might have a pint to celebrate.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Happy B-day, Brittain!

[OngBonga]

Thanks. I celebrated with a cup of tea and a spliff.

[oskar]

Poor Theresa May, if she knew that brexiters would have been happy with Britain suspending their vote in the EU, but to keep abiding by its trade rules, she could have just done that. Or maybe Britain needed the right salesman to sell them this *slaps bonnet* vintage Marina!

But in other news: the US Senate just voted to have no witnesses in order to make their sham trial look more like a sham trial than it already does. Meanwhile the White House's legal defense is literally: it is not impeachable for a president to do anything if he thinks it helps his re-election campaign (actual argument).

I think it's time for muricans to start putting together a plan of action if Trump gets voted out in november but doesn't leave.

[Jack Sawyer]

it's time for muricans to start putting together a plan of action if Trump gets voted out in november but doesn't leave.

LOL you're not kidding, this will happen. MAGA will cordon off the white house, armed to the teeth in their second amendment and potato chips. Mexican ICE will be defending their northern border against detractors of the regime. All the while NBC picks up the rights to "Not Leaving", and CBS comes up with "Forever J". November will be stunningly hilarious

[Jack Sawyer]

https://fair.org/home/corporate-medi...ttack-machine/

Despite all of this shit, Bernie surged like a mofo and leads the polls. Remember that Bernie's actual base, the young folk, are not too likely to be in polls (to be polled). The turnout will be surprising, and it will be glorious seeing all of these media assholes having to eat their own shit. So many people will be fired just to keep appearances (I mean, what good are you as a political pundit if you literally can't read the tea leaves in front of you), and the DNC is in for a Red Wedding of its own once Bernie becomes the nominee.

[oskar]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...stigating-2020

It's done. Trump can't be investigated and seeking foreign election interference is not a crime if you think it will help your chances of getting re-elected. Also Article 2 says Trump can do whatever he wants.
This is going to be a rough election.

On the plus side, I think the conspiracy around the Iowa caucus is actually helping Bernie more than just straight up winning. Namely the conspiracy that the democratic party would be competent enough to rig the vote, rather than what it most likely is: nepotism leading to extremely incompetent people fucking up jobs that a counting horse could do.

[OngBonga]

Isn't Trump's approval rating at an all time high now? This impeachment farce has been a huge own-goal from the "Dems", as far as I can tell.

[oskar]

I'm torn. Kyle Kulinsky who has a good record of predicting things correctly always said it was a bad move from the start. It was weak to focus on the Ukraine stuff, which was not all that interesting compared to emoluments, crimes against humanity at the border, overtly racist policies: the muslim ban, which only passed the supreme court on a technicality, the travel ban on african countries which has zero security merit. I think by far the strongest impeachment article would have been separating 4000 children at the border, losing track of them, and then fighting the Flores act in court... we've been over this.

Out of all of the things they could have picked, they pick the one that looks the most like they're just throwing a hissy fit because their spoiled kid's fake jobs are on the line.
It's very fitting that the day after the impeachment vote, the Iowa caucus app which was at least partially funded by the Buttigieg campaign, and reportedly had a number of ex Hillary staffers and some current Buttigieg staffers working on it malfunctioned so badly, the full count still isn't out today. I can't code, but I'd have the sense to USE FUCKING GOOGLE DOCS! How do you fuck that up?

What I think tipped the impeachment over the break even point for me was Adam Schiff. He actually turned out to be a really great speaker. Having a full week of coverage of Schiff laying out the arguments, I think will turn out well. The acquittal energized Trump's base, but I think senate democrats actually did a really great job laying out what's on the line. Romney flipping is also huge. I don't buy that it's a big loss or big win either way. By november it will mean very little.


The big upside is: the absolute blatant and incompetent campaign against Sanders by his own party is so embarrassing and so incompetent and so infuriating that it will make Sanders pull so far ahead that the DNC will have no choice but to nominate him.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm torn. Kyle Kulinsky who has a good record of predicting things correctly always said it was a bad move from the start. It was weak to focus on the Ukraine stuff, which was not all that interesting compared to emoluments, crimes against humanity at the border, overtly racist policies: the muslim ban, which only passed the supreme court on a technicality, the travel ban on african countries which has zero security merit. I think by far the strongest impeachment article would have been separating 4000 children at the border, losing track of them, and then fighting the Flores act in court... we've been over this.

Out of all of the things they could have picked, they pick the one that looks the most like they're just throwing a hissy fit because their spoiled kid's fake jobs are on the line.
It's very fitting that the day after the impeachment vote, the Iowa caucus app which was at least partially funded by the Buttigieg campaign, and reportedly had a number of ex Hillary staffers and some current Buttigieg staffers working on it malfunctioned so badly, the full count still isn't out today. I can't code, but I'd have the sense to USE FUCKING GOOGLE DOCS! How do you fuck that up?

What I think tipped the impeachment over the break even point for me was Adam Schiff. He actually turned out to be a really great speaker. Having a full week of coverage of Schiff laying out the arguments, I think will turn out well. The acquittal energized Trump's base, but I think senate democrats actually did a really great job laying out what's on the line. Romney flipping is also huge. I don't buy that it's a big loss or big win either way. By november it will mean very little.


The big upside is: the absolute blatant and incompetent campaign against Sanders by his own party is so embarrassing and so incompetent and so infuriating that it will make Sanders pull so far ahead that the DNC will have no choice but to nominate him.

I wonder, these assholes never used excel before. How do you fuck up a single job so badly? Truly fubar'd it

[OngBonga]

The problem I saw with this whole impeachment nonsense was that it never had any chance of succeeding, so it was all very obviously a huge waste of time and money, and only served to further divide the country. Impeachment shouldn't even go to trial unless there is a clear chance of success, and for that there needs to be more than one person flipping. The fact the Dems pushed so hard for this smacks of desperation, and further hurt their cause. It doesn't help that they say things like "Trump is a threat to democracy" while they try to remove an elected man from power.

Trump will win in November, and in doing so will become the first impeached President to get reelected. That will speak volumes about what the American people think about this political theatre.

[oskar]

On a more positive note: Bernie's ads are on fire.