Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
WWWwombat

Who should/will the Dems run in 2020?

Recommended Posts

 Ilhan Omar
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/freshman-democratic-rep-ilhan-omar-accused-sending-anti-semitic-tweets-n969946

 

I haven't really found a good source that actually shows the tweets that are mentioned, or why they are anti-semetic.

 

All I got out of the various news sites (liberal ones that are trashing her), is she claimed those attacking her for being antisemitic, are in the pockets of the AIPAC...

But is she actually antisemitic if those calling her antisemitic are actually being paid by AIPAC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

 Ilhan Omar
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/freshman-democratic-rep-ilhan-omar-accused-sending-anti-semitic-tweets-n969946

 

I haven't really found a good source that actually shows the tweets that are mentioned, or why they are anti-semetic.

 

All I got out of the various news sites (liberal ones that are trashing her), is she claimed those attacking her for being antisemitic, are in the pockets of the AIPAC...

But is she actually antisemitic if those calling her antisemitic are actually being paid by AIPAC?

AIPEC is  a non-profit it does not pay any politician or candidate  nor does it make political contributions. Yes, it's a pro-Israel lobby but it does   not get involved in individual political races. 

 

And It's a rather common 'Troupe" that the Jews control the world (especially the US) through bribing them. The comments were not only remeniscent of the "Sons of Zion" but in fact borrows its language from that infamous anti-semtic work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CUBAREY said:

AIPEC is  a non-profit it does not pay any politician or candidate  nor does it make political contributions. Yes, it's a pro-Israel lobby but it does   not get involved in individual political races. 

 

And It's a rather common 'Troupe" that the Jews control the world (especially the US) through bribing them. The comments were not only remeniscent of the "Sons of Zion" but in fact borrows its language from that infamous anti-semtic work.

I thought lobbyists all had to pay to get heard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. It's not really about 2020 so i might move it to a new thread

 

2. The real 3rd rail in american politics is isreal. This is an example. 

 

On what actually happened;

 

A reporter tweeted a link from the leading isreali newspaper (haaretz) about how Kevin - "Call Me Mr. Skittles" - McCarthy, promised that he would seek that the Democratic house leadership punish Taleeb and Omar over their support of the BDS movement (Boycott, Diversify, Sanction; a movement born out of the idea that what actually brought an end to apartied in south aferica was economic presure, and therefore that the correct, non-violent way of ending the apartied of palestinians in isreal is similar economic pressure), equating the BDS movement, and  their supporting it, to how he felt he was forced to punish Steve King for being a racist. 

 

The reporter, Glenn Greenwold, then opinided that it's shocking to see American lawmakers seek to punish people who support pro-Palestinian movements.

 

Omar replied that it wasn't shocking, since being anti-palestinian/pro-isreal is the more lucrative position.

 

When asked what she meant, she refered to AIPAC, in a rough comparision to the NRA; lobbying groups which have an outsized influence on government policy.

 

...

 

However, in the American political world, having any line other than unquestionably pro-isreal is unaccatple. 

 

The outcry, and her response, both solidify that impression.

 



 

DzJjCfOWsAA4-vR.jpg

 

 

Tagged with:

 

Listening, learning and staying strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyzack said:

1. It's not really about 2020 so i might move it to a new thread

 

2. The real 3rd rail in american politics is isreal. This is an example. 

 

On what actually happened;

 

A reporter tweeted a link from the leading isreali newspaper (haaretz) about how Kevin - "Call Me Mr. Skittles" - McCarthy, promised that he would seek that the Democratic house leadership punish Taleeb and Omar over their support of the BDS movement (Boycott, Diversify, Sanction; a movement born out of the idea that what actually brought an end to apartied in south aferica was economic presure, and therefore that the correct, non-violent way of ending the apartied of palestinians in isreal is similar economic pressure), equating the BDS movement, and  their supporting it, to how he felt he was forced to punish Steve King for being a racist. 

 

The reporter, Glenn Greenwold, then opinided that it's shocking to see American lawmakers seek to punish people who support pro-Palestinian movements.

 

Omar replied that it wasn't shocking, since being anti-palestinian/pro-isreal is the more lucrative position.

 

When asked what she meant, she refered to AIPAC, in a rough comparision to the NRA; lobbying groups which have an outsized influence on government policy.

 

...

 

However, in the American political world, having any line other than unquestionably pro-isreal is unaccatple. 

 

The outcry, and her response, both solidify that impression.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 


 

DzJjCfOWsAA4-vR.jpg

 
 

 

 

 

Tagged with:

 

Listening, learning and staying strong.

SOoooooo.

Was it racist, or is that word just being thrown around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

SOoooooo.

Was it racist, or is that word just being thrown around?

 

Some people who are anti-palestinian accuse the BDS movement of not being entirely non-violent and not supporting a two-state solution; therefore they label BDS as anti-isreal/anti-semitic.

 

Comparing supporting BDS to Steve King supporting white nationalism/racism is quiet a strech, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

 

Some people who are anti-palestinian accuse the BDS movement of not being entirely non-violent and not supporting a two-state solution; therefore they label BDS as anti-isreal/anti-semitic.

 

Comparing supporting BDS to Steve King supporting white nationalism/racism is quiet a strech, IMO.

That barely answers the question?

 

But I guess it's telling that a chain of tweets, under 30 words, is so much more racist to members of congress, that both democrats & republicans called for her to apologize/quit... in contrast to all the speeches & actions of the Trump administration, where both Dems & republicans don't agree on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

That barely answers the question?

 

But I guess it's telling that a chain of tweets, under 30 words, is so much more racist to members of congress, that both democrats & republicans called for her to apologize/quit... in contrast to all the speeches & actions of the Trump administration, where both Dems & republicans don't agree on it.

 

Let me try again:

 

Jews have been, in the western world, the most descriminated against non PoC group, to the extent that, honestly, there is really one country - Isreal - in which they can live "freely" and one other which welcomes them openly, with no real historical abuses to speak of - the US. 

 

That being said, anti-semitism is racism, plain and simple, in that much, it is exactly like when Steve King says he wants a "White America" - ironically that a white america is also a jew-free america, and therefore is also anti-semitic. 

 

As to whether or not saying "follow the money" to see why BDS does not enjoy the popular support the ANC does, well, whatever, I don't think it is, and I think her point stands. It's like saying "following the NRA money" or saying you want to reduce the NRAs influence makes you anti-gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...I only saw it on the local news but Seth Multon said he'd make an announcement about running in a few months.

 

I haven't heard anything from my friend who works for him, but my guess is that he'll tabble and withdraw, or try, but not too hard. I don't think it's "his time" yet...but my friend is agressively looking at MBAs and will probably move out of Boston in the next year so...maybe that's a sign?

 

[He's Multon's veterans' affairs laisson; they served together in afghanistan]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyzack said:

Well, assuming the DNC doesnt rig an election against him again, he has the best brand recognition of anyone who has announced so far. He's also the best candidate to go up against Trump to announce so far, even if the odds of beating a sitting President are against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

Well, assuming the DNC doesnt rig an election against him again, he has the best brand recognition of anyone who has announced so far. He's also the best candidate to go up against Trump to announce so far, even if the odds of beating a sitting President are against him.

 

Quote

 

But Sanders’s 2016 success could also be the makings of his greatest 2020 challenge. When he entered the race in 2015, it was in large part to push his progressive left ideas. Other politicians picked up on the fact that Democratic voters liked the big ideas that Sanders was selling, and now the 2020 field is packed with contenders who are campaigning on platforms similar to his 2016 campaign. Sanders’s 2017 “Medicare for all” bill became something of a litmus test for those senators considering a 2020 run — Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren all signed on as co-sponsors. 
 

This means the progressive-left lane in 2020 is quite a bit more crowded than it was in 2016, which is a problem for Sanders, albeit a problem that stems from his own success. Warren is perhaps his most direct ideological competition — she’s been a critic of American capitalism for decades, though unlike Sanders, she still calls herself a capitalist and a Democrat. She also hired his 2016 Iowa caucus director — inside baseball to be sure, but it’s worth paying attention to the campaigns Democratic operatives choose to work for this early on.
 

Another potential complexifier for Sanders is that many Democrats appear to be prioritizing “electability” over ideology in 2020. A Monmouth University poll found that 56 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents wanted a candidate who will perform well against Trump, even if they disagree with that person on most issues. What electability actually means in this context is quite vague, but if it becomes a proxy for a centrist candidate palatable to swing voters, Sanders might be out of luck. Or, even if voters decide that “electable” means more left, Sanders could lose out to new faces trying to sell their pragmatic progressivism — Harris, Warren or potential candidate Beto O’Rourke. We might be wise not to discount voters’ affinity for these new, shiny candidates: 59 percent of respondents in a recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll said they would be interested in “someone entirely new” as their nominee. Forty-one percent of those polled said Sanders shouldn’t even run again.
 

Sanders also would need to work to improve his performance with black voters, a crucial demographic in the Democratic primary.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article. Based on last election cycle though, the "will of the people" means very little to the DNC. They will pick the candidate they want and back them hard.

 

Suppose we will have to wait and see who the DNC shills this year. Right now, I dont trust anyone in the DNC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two main thoughts on the matter:

 

1.) his positions - living wages, health care as a right/Medicare for all, governmental sponsorships for higher education- are all now (or will all be) part of the platform if anyone who runs.

 

2.) which leaves him, and as much as I love him as a senator of a neighboring state pushing for progressive policies in the senate, I think that, not directly because of his actions, neither he nor Hillary should run this cycle because of how bitterly their bases - not themselves - went at each others throats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I've been thinking about post-Bernie entering the race, though this article is about Warren:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elizabeth-warrens-ideas-could-win-the-democratic-primary-even-if-she-doesnt/

 

If the policies which are primarily identified with one candidate make it into the party platform, does it matter so much who's on the top of the ticket?

 

I'll allow that it does, clearly, but this is a question of degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-primary debates:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-dncs-debate-rules-wont-make-the-2020-primaries-any-less-chaotic/

 

Quote

The party has capped the number of debate participants at 20, and to qualify to take the stage, a candidate will need to get at least 1 percent support in three national polls or polls of early primary states, or raise money from a minimum of 65,000 donors from 20 states, including at least 200 unique donors per state. If more than 20 candidates meet this criteria, the party will give preference to candidates who clear both the polling and fundraising thresholds, and if that’s still too many people, invitations will go to candidates who have the highest polling averages. And if the number of qualifying candidates is too unwieldy for a single debate, the Democratic National Committee said it’ll hold primary debates on multiple nights if necessary, assigning candidates randomly to the two debates rather than dividing them based on polling like Republicans did in 2016.

 

Sounds fair?

 

The early (6 person) 2016 debates on the democratic side were laughable, but that's an aside

 

They are clearly motivied to have as inclusive a field as possible. The idea of multiple randomly-seeded debates isn't a bad one, but it'll make drinking games harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"if the number of qualifying candidates is too unwieldy for a single debate, the Democratic National Committee said it’ll hold primary debates on multiple nights if necessary, assigning candidates randomly to the two debates"

 

That opens up the possibility of a lot of mischief. 

 

 

" 1 percent support in three national polls or polls of early primary states, or raise money from a minimum of 65,000 donors from 20 states, including at least 200 unique donors per state. "

 

What polls? Do candidate polls count? Who decides if a state poll is worthy of inclusion? Do polls which have more then a 4.5% magin of error count (many early polls are at or over this level although they are statistically unreliable)? How do you include candidates with one or two percentage support if the margin of error in even the best polls are above 2.5%?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Posts

    • Yes but there is opening yourself to channel and then there is a quick unintentional use.  If you notice before Rand became a channeler, fully aware of what he was doing and willing try to embrace the power, all you get are the side effects from channeling (the taking chances etc,,) but not the filth feeling.  After book 1, when the using the power and the side effects happened near the same time, all he gets is the filth.  The difference is he knows he can channel and needs to embrace the source to channel.  Just like the women who are starting to channel never seem to notice the warmth of touching the female half until they survive the side effects and become aware what they are doing.  A wilder like Nyn, had she stayed in the Two Rivers, never would of felt the feeling of opening herself to the source since she had built up a block, so it might have to do with you have to open yourself up to the power to feel the good or bad.     In one of Rand's lives in book 2 I believe he was a member of the Queen's guards and was lucky, he thought later he understood why but he didn't care.  He was suffering from touching the male half but was basicly a wilder and it was never said he was feeling the filth.  So I think a lot has to do with someone who channels but doesn't really know it or is never trained how to do it aren't fully opening themselves up enough to feel the filth or warmth.  They are incapable of doing anything more then a quick touch of the surface.   It's possible Rand would of started to feel nausea when he accidently channeled and not probably not understand why.  But there seems to be a difference between inadvertently channeling and intentionally channeling.
    • You can make it by heating sweetened condensed milk for a long time, or substitute another caramel sauce
    • https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/20/pew-research-1-in-10-u-s-voters-in-2020-election-will-be-foreign-born/   Muh Russian influence. LOL! We are giving out country away and not enough people care. I suppose one thing follows the other though doesn't it?
×