THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1841, 1842, 1843 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:33 pm    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
kikanga wrote:
governator wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Kamala Harris is dropping out.

I was so high on her after the 1st debate. Boy was I wrong. She couldn't defend her record AT ALL. She flip flopped on Medicare for All. And she couldn't get the small donors. I still find he likeable. But she just wasn't good enough.


Never got African-American support. And neither has Booker.


The black vote is Biden's to lose


The African American vote can be cynical at times. We knew Jesse Jackson would never win President. And we didn't show up for him. But when Barack starting winning caucuses we went all in.
More than any other demographic, early primary and caucus results matter to the AA vote in my opinion.


It'll be interesting to see how African Americans react to Biden's performance in Iowa and New Hampshire. Let's say he performs badly in both (distant 3rd or 4th place) and if there's a movement to abandon him, who they will migrate to. Obviously Kamala is gone now. Will it be Bernie? He has some support among younger African Americans. Warren? Maybe. Buttigieg? Unlikely. Maybe Booker is waiting for his moment in South Carolina, but his support among African Americans there is zero in some polls (he criticized Mayor Pete for having almost no support among AA's in the South, but he's not doing any better).

I still think Biden will somehow prevail, but he can't allow to be embarrassed in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Speaking for myself as a AA I don't think his performance will move the needle. IMO AA will vote Democrat regardless who the candidate is. As previously stated Joe may not be the best candidate (because of his age) but the most viable.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13711

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:44 pm    Post subject:

Oh I'm sure they'll vote for the eventual nominee. I'm talking about the primary. If they sense Biden is a loser, they might start abandoning him before South Carolina.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:10 pm    Post subject:

How late did the AA vote stay with Hillary in 2008? Biden prob can expect the same thing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:43 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Wilt wrote:

This discussion began when you claimed that Joe Rogan is a fascinating interviewer, partly because he invites all kinds of people to his show, even someone as demented as Alex Jones, resulting in a very popular podcast. I'm claiming, as well as others, that this doesn't make him particularly impressive. It actually makes him less impressive. That's not an attack on his free speech or Alex Jones' free speech. It just makes it a lot less likely that I will waste my time following an attention seeker who legitimizes people like Alex Jones. You are, on the other hand, impressed by that. As I said before, great for you. I have higher standards, with all due respect.


Not quite but I can understand how you came to this conclusion. I'm not claiming that Rogan is a fascinating interviewer. For me, it's about the interviewees (some of them, as I have said) that I find fascinating, and the fact that we are able to hear them unfiltered and unedited for hours that I find worth listening to. I do credit Rogan for creating a format and an environment that makes them comfortable enough to come on and speak for hours.

But I get it...you don't want to listen to any of his shows primarily because you disagree with and/or are offended by the opinions of either him and/or some of his guests.

You aren't quite right about how this discussion began. It started when adkindo mentioned that he heard the interview with Tulsi on the Joe Rogan podcast, and I chimed in and challenged anyone to listen to that interview and come away with believing she is a Russian asset (knowingly or unknowingly). You and others who refuse to listen to the interview have brought up all sorts of reasons why she is, in fact, a Russian asset, so the challenge is kind of meaningless at this point. We're just talking past each other.


I think there's a bit of error/misrepresentation on both ends. The point is (and I can only speak to my portion of the discussion here), it's not matter of "refusing" to listen to that particular interview so one can continue to erroneously believe she may be (to some degree or other) an aid or asset to Russian influence over this nation's political course. The point is that the single interview that you point to, no matter how long it is or who it is with, doesn't undo or erase all that goes into assessing Gabbard's credibility or influences. And that is a point that you conspicuously keep evading.


My intent is not to evade. If I’m understanding you correctly, and I do not want to misrepresent or put words in your mouth, there is nothing she could possibly say or do on the Joe Rogan podcast or elsewhere at this point that would convince you that she is not a Russian asset. Do I have your perspective correct?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:46 pm    Post subject:

Wrong thread Deleted jodeke
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:47 pm    Post subject:

Wrong thread Deleted jodeke
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:16 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Wilt wrote:

This discussion began when you claimed that Joe Rogan is a fascinating interviewer, partly because he invites all kinds of people to his show, even someone as demented as Alex Jones, resulting in a very popular podcast. I'm claiming, as well as others, that this doesn't make him particularly impressive. It actually makes him less impressive. That's not an attack on his free speech or Alex Jones' free speech. It just makes it a lot less likely that I will waste my time following an attention seeker who legitimizes people like Alex Jones. You are, on the other hand, impressed by that. As I said before, great for you. I have higher standards, with all due respect.


Not quite but I can understand how you came to this conclusion. I'm not claiming that Rogan is a fascinating interviewer. For me, it's about the interviewees (some of them, as I have said) that I find fascinating, and the fact that we are able to hear them unfiltered and unedited for hours that I find worth listening to. I do credit Rogan for creating a format and an environment that makes them comfortable enough to come on and speak for hours.

But I get it...you don't want to listen to any of his shows primarily because you disagree with and/or are offended by the opinions of either him and/or some of his guests.

You aren't quite right about how this discussion began. It started when adkindo mentioned that he heard the interview with Tulsi on the Joe Rogan podcast, and I chimed in and challenged anyone to listen to that interview and come away with believing she is a Russian asset (knowingly or unknowingly). You and others who refuse to listen to the interview have brought up all sorts of reasons why she is, in fact, a Russian asset, so the challenge is kind of meaningless at this point. We're just talking past each other.


I think there's a bit of error/misrepresentation on both ends. The point is (and I can only speak to my portion of the discussion here), it's not matter of "refusing" to listen to that particular interview so one can continue to erroneously believe she may be (to some degree or other) an aid or asset to Russian influence over this nation's political course. The point is that the single interview that you point to, no matter how long it is or who it is with, doesn't undo or erase all that goes into assessing Gabbard's credibility or influences. And that is a point that you conspicuously keep evading.


My intent is not to evade. If I’m understanding you correctly, and I do not want to misrepresent or put words in your mouth, there is nothing she could possibly say or do on the Joe Rogan podcast or elsewhere at this point that would convince you that she is not a Russian asset. Do I have your perspective correct?


This is called a pivot. And I must say it's very well executed.

Not going to comment on the content. I'm just pointing out the dance move. Even the Russian judge would give you high marks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:18 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Another gem from 6 time Joe Rogan guest Jordan Peterson:
Quote:
“It’s been really interesting for me to watch the response… of young Caucasian males to hip-hop. You know, there’s an aggressiveness about hip-hop that’s really attractive to young Caucasian males. And there’s something absurd about the spectacle of the young Caucasian males taking on the persona of inner-city black gang members. But I’m sympathetic to it because there’s an aggressiveness to that art form that’s a necessary corrective to the insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness—which is absurd.

Women don’t even like harmless men; they hate them. They like to claw them apart. What women want are dangerous men who are civilized; and they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.


He didn't say that on Joe's podcast. But I can see why Joe brought him on so many times. He's a fountain of knowledge.
This guy knows women am I right CL?


Jordan Peterson is a well-known misogynist. His putrid opinions about women and feminism flow from that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29152
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:45 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Another gem from 6 time Joe Rogan guest Jordan Peterson:
Quote:
“It’s been really interesting for me to watch the response… of young Caucasian males to hip-hop. You know, there’s an aggressiveness about hip-hop that’s really attractive to young Caucasian males. And there’s something absurd about the spectacle of the young Caucasian males taking on the persona of inner-city black gang members. But I’m sympathetic to it because there’s an aggressiveness to that art form that’s a necessary corrective to the insistence that the highest moral virtue for a modern man is harmlessness—which is absurd.

Women don’t even like harmless men; they hate them. They like to claw them apart. What women want are dangerous men who are civilized; and they want to help civilize them. That’s Beauty and the Beast.


He didn't say that on Joe's podcast. But I can see why Joe brought him on so many times. He's a fountain of knowledge.
This guy knows women am I right CL?


Jordan Peterson is a well-known misogynist. His putrid opinions about women and feminism flow from that.


Scary thing is. He has 2.4 million youtube subscribers.
In the third quarter of 2019, it was found that 81 percent of U.S. internet users aged 15 to 25 years accessed YouTube.

He is helping "educate" many of the next generation's misogynists.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:50 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Wilt wrote:

This discussion began when you claimed that Joe Rogan is a fascinating interviewer, partly because he invites all kinds of people to his show, even someone as demented as Alex Jones, resulting in a very popular podcast. I'm claiming, as well as others, that this doesn't make him particularly impressive. It actually makes him less impressive. That's not an attack on his free speech or Alex Jones' free speech. It just makes it a lot less likely that I will waste my time following an attention seeker who legitimizes people like Alex Jones. You are, on the other hand, impressed by that. As I said before, great for you. I have higher standards, with all due respect.


Not quite but I can understand how you came to this conclusion. I'm not claiming that Rogan is a fascinating interviewer. For me, it's about the interviewees (some of them, as I have said) that I find fascinating, and the fact that we are able to hear them unfiltered and unedited for hours that I find worth listening to. I do credit Rogan for creating a format and an environment that makes them comfortable enough to come on and speak for hours.

But I get it...you don't want to listen to any of his shows primarily because you disagree with and/or are offended by the opinions of either him and/or some of his guests.

You aren't quite right about how this discussion began. It started when adkindo mentioned that he heard the interview with Tulsi on the Joe Rogan podcast, and I chimed in and challenged anyone to listen to that interview and come away with believing she is a Russian asset (knowingly or unknowingly). You and others who refuse to listen to the interview have brought up all sorts of reasons why she is, in fact, a Russian asset, so the challenge is kind of meaningless at this point. We're just talking past each other.


I think there's a bit of error/misrepresentation on both ends. The point is (and I can only speak to my portion of the discussion here), it's not matter of "refusing" to listen to that particular interview so one can continue to erroneously believe she may be (to some degree or other) an aid or asset to Russian influence over this nation's political course. The point is that the single interview that you point to, no matter how long it is or who it is with, doesn't undo or erase all that goes into assessing Gabbard's credibility or influences. And that is a point that you conspicuously keep evading.


My intent is not to evade. If I’m understanding you correctly, and I do not want to misrepresent or put words in your mouth, there is nothing she could possibly say or do on the Joe Rogan podcast or elsewhere at this point that would convince you that she is not a Russian asset. Do I have your perspective correct?


OK, so if that's so, I'm sure you won't mind actually responding to my point - which as I previously said you quite pointedly haven't so far. So, in that regard, I similarly do not want to misrepresent you or put words in your mouth. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that what Gabbard says in a single interview with Joe Rogan supersedes everything she has done and said outside the context of that single interview.

Do I have your perspective correct?

With that out of the way, I will address your question. You are misrepresenting my point, and whether that is willfully so or not I can't say. I will say that I have been pretty clear in stating that I look at the totality of things when I am assessing a situation - as I said when I referred to a "body of work". A single instance doesn't eliminate everything that came before or after it. Tulsi Gabbard could certainly say something to mitigate some the conclusions drawn from everything she has said and done over the course of her career. But simply saying some things in the context of a Joe Rogan interview is not going radically change everything else that has been gathered everywhere else. And it would be absolutely foolish to see it any other way.

Your very own description of Rogan above depicts a guy who allows any guest to come on and comfortably just go on a podcast and in relaxed and unfettered fashion say anything they see fit. That's great for entertainment purposes, but such an unchallenging format is not going to be a place where Gabbard (or anyone else) is going to manage to eradicate what they have said and done in their prior actions. And even if we were to remove Rogan and his style from the context of the discussion and switch it over to a true journalistic interview from the best of them, one interview is just one piece of information to be calculated into the totality of everything else.

I'm just going to be frank at this point because I think it is important to be in order to make the point clear. If someone finds themselves coming to a final conclusion about anyone based on any one interview on whatever platform that may be, that person should take a moment to reevaluate their decision making processes.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:20 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:


OK, so if that's so, I'm sure you won't mind actually responding to my point - which as I previously said you quite pointedly haven't so far. So, in that regard, I similarly do not want to misrepresent you or put words in your mouth. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that what Gabbard says in a single interview with Joe Rogan supersedes everything she has done and said outside the context of that single interview.

Do I have your perspective correct?


If I missed responding to something you said before that was directed at me, my apologies. I am finding it difficult to keep up with the echo chamber of comments that this forum becomes when I express an opinion that is not sanctioned by the tribe. You actually do not have my perspective correct.

I’ll be frank too. My perspective is that you and others here are so steeped in the propaganda and smear campaign that has been pushed by the mainstream/corporate media against Tulsi Gabbard that you’ve been unwittingly duped into believing that she is a Russian asset. My hope was that by actually listening to her address the accusations directly and fully, you might start to realize that maybe things aren’t as black and white as you thought they were.

DaMuleRules wrote:

With that out of the way, I will address your question. You are misrepresenting my point, and whether that is willfully so or not I can't say. I will say that I have been pretty clear in stating that I look at the totality of things when I am assessing a situation - as I said when I referred to a "body of work". A single instance doesn't eliminate everything that came before or after it. Tulsi Gabbard could certainly say something to mitigate some the conclusions drawn from everything she has said and done over the course of her career. But simply saying some things in the context of a Joe Rogan interview is not going radically change everything else that has been gathered everywhere else. And it would be absolutely foolish to see it any other way.

To further clarify, I believe your (and others) perceptions of what she has said and done are being shaped less by what she has actually said and done, and more by the hit pieces that started appearing in the media when it appeared she might be a viable candidate. (Starting with the discredited NBC article which I’ve linked to previously.)

In addition, I want to make a clear distinction between disagreeing with her policies, thinking she is a poor candidate, and accusing her of being a witting or unwitting Russian asset, which is where I think many of my peers on the left have gone too far.

DaMuleRules wrote:

Your very own description of Rogan above depicts a guy who allows any guest to come on and comfortably just go on a podcast and in relaxed and unfettered fashion say anything they see fit. That's great for entertainment purposes, but such an unchallenging format is not going to be a place where Gabbard (or anyone else) is going to manage to eradicate what they have said and done in their prior actions. And even if we were to remove Rogan and his style from the context of the discussion and switch it over to a true journalistic interview from the best of them, one interview is just one piece of information to be calculated into the totality of everything else.

I'm just going to be frank at this point because I think it is important to be in order to make the point clear. If someone finds themselves coming to a final conclusion about anyone based on any one interview on whatever platform that may be, that person should take a moment to reevaluate their decision making processes.


It probably was an unrealistic expectation for me to think that I could get you or anyone else in a political thread on a Lakers fan forum to step out of their particular political and/or ideological bubble to take the time to listen to a congresswoman, veteran, active duty soldier, former vice chair of the DNC, and candidate for President go through what I think is a very interesting exercise of defending herself against the accusations from many directions that she is a Russian asset over the course of a multi hour interview. If nothing else, I was hopeful for just a little more intellectual curiosity about what that would sound like, since the accusation is so serious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:50 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
How late did the AA vote stay with Hillary in 2008? Biden prob can expect the same thing


Hillary had overwhelming AA support at the outset of the '08 campaign. I believe it started to flip when Obama won Iowa, which, ironically, is made up of almost all white people lol. (Oprah Winfrey was a big-time campaigner for Obama in the lead-up to Iowa, too, which I'm sure was important to Obama's win there in the first place.) Once Obama's Iowa victory was proven to not be a fluke (Hillary only won New Hampshire by 3% and the delegate count there was virtually even, and Hillary also narrowly beat Obama in the popular vote in Nevada, though he won 1 more delegate), AA support virtually did a 180 for Obama. For example, in South Carolina (the 4th contest of the '08 campaign and the first state with a large AA population in terms of Democratic voters), Obama got 55% of the vote and Hillary only got 27%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:13 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
governator wrote:
How late did the AA vote stay with Hillary in 2008? Biden prob can expect the same thing


Hillary had overwhelming AA support at the outset of the '08 campaign. I believe it started to flip when Obama won Iowa, which, ironically, is made up of almost all white people lol. (Oprah Winfrey was a big-time campaigner for Obama in the lead-up to Iowa, too, which I'm sure was important to Obama's win there in the first place.) Once Obama's Iowa victory was proven to not be a fluke (Hillary only won New Hampshire by 3% and the delegate count there was virtually even, and Hillary also narrowly beat Obama in the popular vote in Nevada, though he won 1 more delegate), AA support virtually did a 180 for Obama. For example, in South Carolina (the 4th contest of the '08 campaign and the first state with a large AA population in terms of Democratic voters), Obama got 55% of the vote and Hillary only got 27%.

Don't think it's ironic at all, it's because Obama showed he could win the votes of white people that the black vote turned out for him. At least that's the sense I've gotten from listening to various podcasts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:22 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
when it appeared she might be a viable candidate.


This never happened.
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Huey Lewis & The News
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 5234
Location: So what's the uh...topic of discussion?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:41 am    Post subject:

Duncan Hunter (R-CA) on charges of using campaign funds to bling up his life:

"It's a witch hunt!"

also Duncan Hunter after his own wife agrees to testify against him

"Guilty, your honor."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/03/witch-hunt-guilty-plea-duncan-hunters-abrupt-his-innocence/
_________________
"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."
http://forums.lakersground.net/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13018
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:14 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
governator wrote:
How late did the AA vote stay with Hillary in 2008? Biden prob can expect the same thing


Hillary had overwhelming AA support at the outset of the '08 campaign. I believe it started to flip when Obama won Iowa, which, ironically, is made up of almost all white people lol. (Oprah Winfrey was a big-time campaigner for Obama in the lead-up to Iowa, too, which I'm sure was important to Obama's win there in the first place.) Once Obama's Iowa victory was proven to not be a fluke (Hillary only won New Hampshire by 3% and the delegate count there was virtually even, and Hillary also narrowly beat Obama in the popular vote in Nevada, though he won 1 more delegate), AA support virtually did a 180 for Obama. For example, in South Carolina (the 4th contest of the '08 campaign and the first state with a large AA population in terms of Democratic voters), Obama got 55% of the vote and Hillary only got 27%.

Don't think it's ironic at all, it's because Obama showed he could win the votes of white people that the black vote turned out for him. At least that's the sense I've gotten from listening to various podcasts


Perhaps it's "ironic" in the same way that all those things that Alanis sang about were "ironic", don't ya think?

(Part of me thinks that you're so young that you may not even get that reference.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:59 am    Post subject:

Meanwhile:

“Did you ever talk to this guy Les Parnas or whatever his name is?” Hannity asked, mispronouncing the Giuliani henchman’s name while acting like he barely knows who Parnas is.
“You know, it’s possible,” Nunes replied. “I haven’t gone through my phone records. I don’t really recall that name.”
“I remember the name now because he has been indicted,” the conservative congressman added. “Why would CNN rely on somebody like this? I will go back and check my records, but it seems very unlikely I will be taking calls from random people.”

Mm-hm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:20 am    Post subject:

538 is saying we are probably at a partisan impasse with regards to impeachment. There are no apparent political ramifications for Republicans voting not to impeach, and I don’t think we can count on any of them to actually vote their conscience here.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/if-impeachment-was-inevitable-what-difference-did-the-hearings-make/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:55 am    Post subject:

Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) on charges of using campaign funds to bling up his life:

"It's a witch hunt!"

also Duncan Hunter after his own wife agrees to testify against him

"Guilty, your honor."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/03/witch-hunt-guilty-plea-duncan-hunters-abrupt-his-innocence/


Yeah, but do you recall Obama said we could keep our health insurance policy if we liked it. So both parties lie. All politicians do man. Get over it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29152
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:44 am    Post subject:

Surf. Even if you take Russia completely out of the picture. Tulsi is a witting and willing prop for conservative media. And that's enough for me to never consider her as President.

She goes out of her way to make false equivalencies between Democrats and Republicans in the Trump era. She doesn't hold Republicans to a standard anywhere close to where she holds the Democratic party. She repeats conservative media talking points.

It's fine to point out flaws in the Democratic party. But what she is doing is beyond that. What she is doing is dangerous and dishonest. Maybe she's going for another attempt to make it into Trump's cabinet if he wins in 2020. Because in no way is she trying to be a leader in the Democratic party.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”


Last edited by kikanga on Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:49 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:47 am    Post subject:

Just a reminder that


Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Trump

are responsible for children being separated from their mothers and father's at the border

How do these humans look into a mirror and survive what they see

Jeff Sessions: Parents and Children Illegally Crossing the Border Will Be Separated
https://time.com/5268572/jeff-sessions-illegal-border-separated/

I had to see this today
Border Patrol threw away migrants’ belongings. A janitor saved and photographed them
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-12-02/tom-kiefer-exhibition-el-sueno-americano


Throwing away their insulin??? Pure EVIL

Trump, Sessions, Steven Miller, Cucinelli, and John Kelly have broken all amnesty laws and rightfully deserve life sentences for their actions.

Dare a Republican to Google "Jimmy Aldaoud" and still support Trump or anything related to his existence? <<<<MURDERED BY ICE

Our government knowingly dumped a schizophrenic diabetic man in Iraq who lived from his 1st or 2nd birthday to his 41st right here in America

Detroit charged him with "Home Invasion" years ago for stealing 3 drills from an open garage
Served 16mos and case was dropped

40 years in America and they dumped him in Iraq where her never resided and without enough insulin

He died
Oh well
He wasn't white
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:50 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
Meanwhile:

“Did you ever talk to this guy Les Parnas or whatever his name is?” Hannity asked, mispronouncing the Giuliani henchman’s name while acting like he barely knows who Parnas is.
“You know, it’s possible,” Nunes replied. “I haven’t gone through my phone records. I don’t really recall that name.”
“I remember the name now because he has been indicted,” the conservative congressman added. “Why would CNN rely on somebody like this? I will go back and check my records, but it seems very unlikely I will be taking calls from random people.”

Mm-hm.


Nunes should be incarcerated for sitting on the Impeachment inquiry team and trying to obstruct the whole time
while he was involved in all the crimes

Used government funds for everything also
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:54 am    Post subject:

Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) on charges of using campaign funds to bling up his life:

"It's a witch hunt!"

also Duncan Hunter after his own wife agrees to testify against him

"Guilty, your honor."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/03/witch-hunt-guilty-plea-duncan-hunters-abrupt-his-innocence/


Nunes should be next
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:17 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
tox wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
governator wrote:
How late did the AA vote stay with Hillary in 2008? Biden prob can expect the same thing


Hillary had overwhelming AA support at the outset of the '08 campaign. I believe it started to flip when Obama won Iowa, which, ironically, is made up of almost all white people lol. (Oprah Winfrey was a big-time campaigner for Obama in the lead-up to Iowa, too, which I'm sure was important to Obama's win there in the first place.) Once Obama's Iowa victory was proven to not be a fluke (Hillary only won New Hampshire by 3% and the delegate count there was virtually even, and Hillary also narrowly beat Obama in the popular vote in Nevada, though he won 1 more delegate), AA support virtually did a 180 for Obama. For example, in South Carolina (the 4th contest of the '08 campaign and the first state with a large AA population in terms of Democratic voters), Obama got 55% of the vote and Hillary only got 27%.

Don't think it's ironic at all, it's because Obama showed he could win the votes of white people that the black vote turned out for him. At least that's the sense I've gotten from listening to various podcasts


Perhaps it's "ironic" in the same way that all those things that Alanis sang about were "ironic", don't ya think?

(Part of me thinks that you're so young that you may not even get that reference.)


except there's no Obama this time around (young, up and coming, brilliant orator). Booker? Deval Patrick? Castro? Yang?... not the same level. Biden picked the right year to run now that I think of it. He would've run into the '1st woman president push' in Hillary for 2016
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:18 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) on charges of using campaign funds to bling up his life:

"It's a witch hunt!"

also Duncan Hunter after his own wife agrees to testify against him

"Guilty, your honor."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/03/witch-hunt-guilty-plea-duncan-hunters-abrupt-his-innocence/


Nunes should be next

Trump should be next
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1841, 1842, 1843 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
Page 1842 of 3663
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB