Board 8 > Politics Internment Topic 226

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1140643438548750336

This is less a condemnation of Warren than a pro-Bernie point, but you can see here that he is the only person who gets a hard no. Anyone else they are open to the possibility.

Nrrr posted...

. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of our political situation (oligarchy) to think we can just nominate someone, elect them, and magically get nice things.

I mean, that's the core problem with the "political revolution." It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the political reality in this country. There's a good ~30% of people who are lockstep with Trump and the GOP. Sanders can win the presidency but he's been skeptical of even getting rid of the filibuster and its the height of naivety to think that he's going to... what? Get public outcry to get McConnell to back down? When the Republicans have 47-51 seats in the Senate?

Warren at least recognizes that the filibuster has primarily been used as a weapon to thwart progressive legislation and is calling for an end to it.
---

Nrrr posted...

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1140643438548750336

This is less a condemnation of Warren than a pro-Bernie point, but you can see here that he is the only person who gets a hard no. Anyone else they are open to the possibility.

Yes, this is the kind of stuff I was referring to.

Obviously Wall Street would love a Buttiegieg or a Biden over Warren, but 99% of their ire is directed towards Bernie.

And related, if you wanna see some ridiculous shit, look around Democrat #resistance Twitter and you will see absolutely awful posts about Bernie, CONSTANTLY. These are the same people who say that Hillary lost because "Bernie was so nasty", and that "attacking Biden because he's an old man is just what Trump wants", yet they have no problem shitting on Bernie.

These people never shit on Warren, they love her. It's hard not to see that the donor class of the Democratic party is perfectly fine with Warren, even if she's not their top pick.
---

Sanders has class consciousness. Trump has class consciousness. Yes, it's a Marxist term but it is extremely relevant today. I don't see evidence that the rest of the field has class consciousness.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

And related, if you wanna see some ridiculous shit, look around Democrat #resistance Twitter and you will see absolutely awful posts about Bernie, CONSTANTLY. These are the same people who say that Hillary lost because "Bernie was so nasty", and that "attacking Biden because he's an old man is just what Trump wants", yet they have no problem shitting on Bernie.

These people never shit on Warren, they love her. It's hard not to see that the donor class of the Democratic party is perfectly fine with Warren, even if she's not their top pick.

are you trying to imply the donor class of the democratic party is #resistance twitter?

Real talk: You bring up your grudge over 2016 way too much. This isn't the first time (in this topic even) you've brought up Hillary unprompted to take swipes at her/her supporters.
---

https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1140724084835307526

Update on the Alex Jones situation.

Nrrr posted...

https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1140724084835307526

Update on the Alex Jones situation.

damn that's disappointing

it does actually make sense though

xp1337 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

And related, if you wanna see some ridiculous shit, look around Democrat #resistance Twitter and you will see absolutely awful posts about Bernie, CONSTANTLY. These are the same people who say that Hillary lost because "Bernie was so nasty", and that "attacking Biden because he's an old man is just what Trump wants", yet they have no problem shitting on Bernie.

These people never shit on Warren, they love her. It's hard not to see that the donor class of the Democratic party is perfectly fine with Warren, even if she's not their top pick.

are you trying to imply the donor class of the democratic party is #resistance twitter?

Real talk: You bring up your grudge over 2016 way too much. This isn't the first time (in this topic even) you've brought up Hillary unprompted to take swipes at her/her supporters.

Dude, read the Twitter Cyclo posted. There are literally dozens of "Democrats" attacking Bernie in the replies. I picked one at random and they literally retweeted Hillary 7 hours ago. I'm calling out their hypocrisy, simple as that. Just about any Bernie tweet with reach gets those replies, I see it every day.

Sure, those could be "russian bots", but it's impossible to distinguish when there are actual blue checkmark Dem activists in the mix as well.

And like I said, I support and like Warren, but you cannot deny that she gets less hate than Bernie, you just can't.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nrrr posted...

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1140643438548750336

This is less a condemnation of Warren than a pro-Bernie point, but you can see here that he is the only person who gets a hard no. Anyone else they are open to the possibility.

Yes, this is the kind of stuff I was referring to.

Obviously Wall Street would love a Buttiegieg or a Biden over Warren, but 99% of their ire is directed towards Bernie.

And related, if you wanna see some ridiculous shit, look around Democrat #resistance Twitter and you will see absolutely awful posts about Bernie, CONSTANTLY. These are the same people who say that Hillary lost because "Bernie was so nasty", and that "attacking Biden because he's an old man is just what Trump wants", yet they have no problem shitting on Bernie.

These people never shit on Warren, they love her. It's hard not to see that the donor class of the Democratic party is perfectly fine with Warren, even if she's not their top pick.

This whole "question" is based on way too much conjecture and comparing two wholly different primaries - Hillary vs Bernie vs that other guy that kinda existed is a much different monster than the first half a year of Biden vs Bernie vs Warren vs Harris vs Buttigieg vs Beto vs Booker vs Yang vs Gillibrand vs Hickenlooper vs DeBlasio vs Castro vs Williamson vs Gabbard vs Klobuchar vs Delaney vs argh there's one guy who's face i totally remember but can't name it... Eric... SWALWELL vs okay I give up here this is all by memory. Not to mention this time around having gone through a term of Trump.

okay so I got to 17 who else is in the debate I missed at least... INSLEE oh geez that's a fail but lol Tim Ryan and I always forget that Bennet announced

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dude, read the Twitter Cyclo posted. There are literally dozens of "Democrats" attacking Bernie in the replies. I picked one at random and they literally retweeted Hillary 7 hours ago. I'm calling out their hypocrisy, simple as that. Just about any Bernie tweet with reach gets those replies, I see it every day.

Sure, those could be "russian bots", but it's impossible to distinguish when there are actual blue checkmark Dem activists in the mix as well.

And like I said, I support and like Warren, but you cannot deny that she gets less hate than Bernie, you just can't.

Sure he does, and the 2016 Democratic Primary obviously carries with it a megaton of baggage that Warren ducked out of.
---

You forgot the most important candidate of all: Marianne Williamson.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You forgot the most important candidate of all: Marianne Williamson.

Ctrl+F Williamson!
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dude, read the Twitter Cyclo posted. There are literally dozens of "Democrats" attacking Bernie in the replies.

I did, and honestly what I saw there was tons of Sanders supporters swiping at Warren from her being owned by corporations to a warhawk. I actually didn't see the reverse and I scrolled down about... 30 replies maybe?

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Sure, those could be "russian bots", but it's impossible to distinguish when there are actual blue checkmark Dem activists in the mix as well.

weird that you feel the need to scare quote that.

Off-hand, the one actual confirmed case I've run across of that actually happening was a guy trying to stir-up **** by acting like a "just asking questions" Sanders supporter. But some people dug into other posts he made and found he wasn't from the US. And before it was pointed out, it was actually working in aggravating people against Sanders. This stuff happens and it works.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

but you cannot deny that she gets less hate than Bernie, you just can't.

I mean, if I restricted myself to the anecdotal stuff you've tossed at me, it's gone the opposite way.

I'm not making a judgment call though. Because tbqh, Trump's riled up enough people with the "Pocahontas" **** that I think you very well may be completely wrong here. But this also isn't a metric I particularly care about so I'm just gonna shrug and say "I don't know who gets more social media hate. And I don't know why it matters."
---

I really wanna pretend I remembered Inslee and only missed Ryan/Bennet
---

oh right and let's absolutely not forget that the first few months coverage of Warren was 95% about how utterly unpopular and unelectable she was

She was the first candidate to announce but it's only now she's had a breakout moment and that early impression/coverage still does drag on her in the polls
---

Forget about the people you forgot in 2020, I will not stand for the 2016 Chafee and Webb erasure. Feel the Chafe!

O'Malley was the 2016 I forgot the name of!
---

Yeah but you didn't erase him from existence, just forgot his name.

those 2016 debates sure were something

you had Chafee explaining a bad vote he made with literally "it was my first day" and Webb talking about how he killed someone in Vietnam
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You forgot the most important candidate of all: Marianne Williamson.

Ctrl+F Williamson!

whoops

xp1337 posted...

weird that you feel the need to scare quote that.

Off-hand, the one actual confirmed case I've run across of that actually happening was a guy trying to stir-up **** by acting like a "just asking questions" Sanders supporter. But some people dug into other posts he made and found he wasn't from the US. And before it was pointed out, it was actually working in aggravating people against Sanders. This stuff happens and it works.

I'm not implying they didn't happen, and I don't know why you think I would.

I "scare quoted" it to attempt to cutoff potential handwavy "those are probably bots" like there aren't actual verified Dems attacking Sanders every day.

CelesMyUserName posted...

oh right and let's absolutely not forget that the first few months coverage of Warren was 95% about how utterly unpopular and unelectable she was

She was the first candidate to announce but it's only now she's had a breakout moment and that early impression/coverage still does drag on her in the polls

I remember this, but it was also widely agreed upon and most specifically about how she handled the ancestry fight with Trump like shit.

I recall myself saying multiple times how disappointed I was that she did that, because she was easily my #2 pick(and still is).
---

Not sure why the oligarchy is afraid of Bernie. Their buddy Mitch McConnell will do their bidding just fine, and he's not going anywhere.
---

Because they see a much bigger picture than you. They fear Bernie as a leader who can bring class consciousness into people's minds and grow a movement, get people engaged in politics. Bernie, for example, has been having his volunteers stand with the McDonald's workers striking in solidarity. He spoke on behalf of workers to the Walmart board. He played a large part in using pressure on Amazon to force them to adopt 15 dollars an hour as their starting wage. These are the kinds of things that terrify them.

Also Mitch would sell them out for the right price.
---

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-officials-hide-russia-cyber-operation-trump-2019-6

They honestly should keep this shit away from Trump.

...but maybe also the New York Times? Uh?
---

Details vs overview

If I read the original article correctly they want Russia to know something is happening
---

Ashethan posted...

Not sure why the oligarchy is afraid of Bernie. Their buddy Mitch McConnell will do their bidding just fine, and he's not going anywhere.

He's gotta die or retire eventually.
---

https://www.rentonreporter.com/news/renton-man-says-shooting-was-a-dominance-thing/

Dad kills his daughter in front of her baby, shoots her six times over argument over where to place a baby gate.

Is this one of those 'responsible gun owners' we're always being told about?
---

I like Bernie, I like Warren.

I don't really think "More people on twitter seem to hate Bernie" is really an argument for either Bernie or Warren. There's way, way too much noise from amateur trolls and professional trolls.

As far as wall street goes, the quote that jumps to mind is:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/28/wall-street-2020-economy-taxes-1118065

Bankers biggest fear: The nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Sanders. It cant be Warren and it cant be Sanders, said the CEO of another giant bank.

After mentioning Bloomberg, Wall Street executives who want Trump out list a consistent roster of appealing nominees that includes former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California. Others meriting mention: former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and former Texas Rep. Beto ORourke, though fewally know his positions.

TBH, if I had to choose between Warren and Bernie right now, I'd take Warren. I think she gives a better speech, and I've seen more new policies out of her like breaking up Amazon and the wealth tax, whereas Bernie's platform is...still obviously very solid, but largely unchanged near as I can tell. Warren just seems to be the innovator right now.

But like...in practical terms, I'll support whichever one looks like they can take down the wall-street aligned democrats, so I don't think picking between the two is really a decision that's going to come up.
---

I like Bernie, but I feel Elizabeth Warren could probably get more done. Not to mention Bernie's age is a big concern. Same goes for Biden, but that's like the smallest complaint with regards to him.

As for Gabbard, her recent attacks on Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono over asking if a judge could be separate his personal beliefs from his duty as a judge -- a perfectly legitimate question to ask -- calling it "Anti-Religious Bigotry" has me very concerned about her in regards to LGBT Rights. Not to mention her personal position has NOT changed, just her position on whether it's the government's business or not. Which makes it hard for me to think of her as an ally.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

As for Gabbard, her recent attacks on Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono over asking if a judge could be separate his personal beliefs from his duty as a judge -- a perfectly legitimate question to ask -- calling it "Anti-Religious Bigotry" has me very concerned about her in regards to LGBT Rights. Not to mention her personal position has NOT changed, just her position on whether it's the government's business or not. Which makes it hard for me to think of her as an ally.

+1
---

metroid composite posted...

TBH, if I had to choose between Warren and Bernie right now, I'd take Warren. I think she gives a better speech, and I've seen more new policies out of her like breaking up Amazon and the wealth tax, whereas Bernie's platform is...still obviously very solid, but largely unchanged near as I can tell. Warren just seems to be the innovator right now.

This is precisely what that Cyclo article was referring to btw. It was asking why people constantly call Warrens ideas new, when 90% of her most innovative have been brought up in actual bills by other people before, and/or are part of other peoples platforms.

For example, Bernie has talked about a wealth tax for years, and even put forward a bill for it like 5 years ago.

Related, Bernie calls for unionization in the video game industry:

https://www.vg247.com/2019/06/18/bernie-sanders-endorses-unionization/amp/
---

Results of the second round of MP votes for the next Tory leader (and barring something very unusual, next PM):

Boris Johnson: 126 (+12)
Jeremy Hunt: 46 (+3)
Michael Gove: 41 (+4)
Rory Stewart: 37 (+18)
Sajid Javid: 33 (+10)
Dominic Raab: 30 (+3) - Eliminated

Thank god Raab is gone, the lunatic wanted to suspend parliament to let a disastrous no deal brexit happen. Javid escaped elimination by one vote and as such will likely withdraw. Very bad show also for Hunt since Johnson apparently loaned him 15 votes - meaning that he lost support.

The big story though is the rise of Rory Stewart, who came from nowhere to have the most momentum. He is a very moderate and centrist (UK standards i.e. left of the US norm) and the only one who is actually reasonable, the only one with a viable brexit plan, the only one who actually answers questions, and he was widely seen as the clear winner of the debate they had on Sunday. Hopefully he can keep it up and stop Johnson - if Javid does drop out Rory will gain a lot from him. At least there is hope!
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

metroid composite posted...

TBH, if I had to choose between Warren and Bernie right now, I'd take Warren. I think she gives a better speech, and I've seen more new policies out of her like breaking up Amazon and the wealth tax, whereas Bernie's platform is...still obviously very solid, but largely unchanged near as I can tell. Warren just seems to be the innovator right now.

This is precisely what that Cyclo article was referring to btw. It was asking why people constantly call Warrens ideas new, when 90% of her most innovative have been brought up in actual bills by other people before, and/or are part of other peoples platforms.

For example, Bernie has talked about a wealth tax for years, and even put forward a bill for it like 5 years ago.

Related, Bernie calls for unionization in the video game industry:

https://www.vg247.com/2019/06/18/bernie-sanders-endorses-unionization/amp/

Why is it a problem that Warren's ideas aren't all her own? I don't need a candidate to be a policy genius, I want her to use her leadership to cultivate an ideology and then find and promote the best plans that match that. She co-sponsors ideas and is able to use her spotlight to bring them into view. The general public doesn't care about who came up with this proposed bill they've never heard of because it hasn't gone anywhere. Warren being able to show off many different proposals is a good thing, the Warren narrative makes the narrative of policies accessible.

Even then it's not like she's taking credit. Her platform is "I have a plan for that," not "I, Elizabeth Warren, have a plan that I personally came up with because I'm a supergenius."

Like Bernie didn't fucking invent unions, certainly isn't the first to call for unions in the video game industry, but it's great to see him do so.
---

Jesus Christ, this story about Acting SecDef Shanahan (whose nomination is being pulled):
https://twitter.com/DanLamothe/status/1141032742215397376
It's definitely debatable whether he did anything wrong himself and it's a horrible situation he was in, but the existence of the incident is, at minimum, a pretty clear blackmail risk and it's ridiculous that things like this can stay unevaluated for six months while Trump abuses vacancy appointments.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

metroid composite posted...

TBH, if I had to choose between Warren and Bernie right now, I'd take Warren. I think she gives a better speech, and I've seen more new policies out of her like breaking up Amazon and the wealth tax, whereas Bernie's platform is...still obviously very solid, but largely unchanged near as I can tell. Warren just seems to be the innovator right now.

This is precisely what that Cyclo article was referring to btw. It was asking why people constantly call Warrens ideas new, when 90% of her most innovative have been brought up in actual bills by other people before, and/or are part of other peoples platforms.

For example, Bernie has talked about a wealth tax for years, and even put forward a bill for it like 5 years ago.

Related, Bernie calls for unionization in the video game industry:

https://www.vg247.com/2019/06/18/bernie-sanders-endorses-unionization/amp/

Why is it a problem that Warren's ideas aren't all her own? I don't need a candidate to be a policy genius, I want her to use her leadership to cultivate an ideology and then find and promote the best plans that match that. She co-sponsors ideas and is able to use her spotlight to bring them into view. The general public doesn't care about who came up with this proposed bill they've never heard of because it hasn't gone anywhere. Warren being able to show off many different proposals is a good thing, the Warren narrative makes the narrative of policies accessible.

Even then it's not like she's taking credit. Her platform is "I have a plan for that," not "I, Elizabeth Warren, have a plan that I personally came up with because I'm a supergenius."

Like Bernie didn't fucking invent unions, certainly isn't the first to call for unions in the video game industry, but it's great to see him do so.

---

B-but Bernie had those ideas before they were cool!
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Results of the second round of MP votes for the next Tory leader (and barring something very unusual, next PM):

Boris Johnson: 126 (+12)
Jeremy Hunt: 46 (+3)
Michael Gove: 41 (+4)
Rory Stewart: 37 (+18)
Sajid Javid: 33 (+10)
Dominic Raab: 30 (+3) - Eliminated

Thank god Raab is gone, the lunatic wanted to suspend parliament to let a disastrous no deal brexit happen. Javid escaped elimination by one vote and as such will likely withdraw. Very bad show also for Hunt since Johnson apparently loaned him 15 votes - meaning that he lost support.

The big story though is the rise of Rory Stewart, who came from nowhere to have the most momentum. He is a very moderate and centrist (UK standards i.e. left of the US norm) and the only one who is actually reasonable, the only one with a viable brexit plan, the only one who actually answers questions, and he was widely seen as the clear winner of the debate they had on Sunday. Hopefully he can keep it up and stop Johnson - if Javid does drop out Rory will gain a lot from him. At least there is hope!

What's the procedure? Does the membership get a vote after they get it down to the last 2?
---

NFUN posted...

90% of her most innovative have been brought up in actual bills by other people before, and/or are part of other peoples platforms.

This is most of the democratic field, honestly.

I'll restate. I disagree with the idea that Warren is running as a policy genius. The media may see her that way on occasion, but she typically gives credit to authors and co-sponsors (or, if you're more cynical, does so when it benefits her).

Warren lets the many policies she's aligned herself with drive her narrative in ways other candidates don't. Biden is running on a return to normalcy. Bernie is running on revolution. Beto and Buttigeig are running on charisma. Warren is running on having a LOT of plans and a meta-plan to get them all passed, which makes people pay attention to policies they've ignored. That's what makes her appear innovative to people, and the approach actually is in this field. Besides Yang, who is a total joke.
---

Apparently some conservatives are outraged about a conservative Parkland kid having his Harvard admission rescinded for using the n word in a group google doc in high school:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/17/18682101/kyle-kashuv-harvard-parkland

As someone who was rejected by Harvard multiple times without doing that, put me down as extremely unsympathetic!
---

The article does point this out, but for anyone skimming, I think its important to note that getting his admission rescinded was an agenda of the alt-right

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1131645806832955392?s=21

No sympathy at all for Kashuv, just wanted to point out that the even worse people caused this
---

Also I said this on Discord already but I think this is the first thing Laura Loomer has ever successfully accomplished
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Apparently some conservatives are outraged about a conservative Parkland kid having his Harvard admission rescinded for using the n word in a group google doc in high school:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/17/18682101/kyle-kashuv-harvard-parkland

As someone who was rejected by Harvard multiple times without doing that, put me down as extremely unsympathetic!

He was 16 and that was before the shooting.

This wouldn't be an issue if Harvard had rejected him but they didn't- they accepted him and then rescinded admission after the deadline to accept offers from other schools had passed.

If I were a juror, I would hold that a contract was formed the moment he accepted Harvard's offer and Harvard must now pay full expectation damages for its breach of contract, which would be the value of a Harvard degree and experience minus the value of whatever degree he'll be able to get now.

That would be something like the difference in lifetime earnings between an average Harvard grad and an average U of Florida grad. Plus 500k for the social benefit of being able to call yourself a Harvard grad at dinner parties.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If I were a juror, I would hold that a contract was formed the moment he accepted Harvard's offer and Harvard must now pay full expectation damages for its breach of contract, which would be the value of a Harvard degree and experience minus the value of whatever degree he'll be able to get now.

If he gets into a better college, would he then owe Harvard money?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If I were a juror, I would hold that a contract was formed the moment he accepted Harvard's offer and Harvard must now pay full expectation damages for its breach of contract, which would be the value of a Harvard degree and experience minus the value of whatever degree he'll be able to get now.

If he gets into a better college, would he then owe Harvard money?

There is no better college. And no, even if he did, he wouldn't, because he didn't breach the contract.
---

red sox as a juror is a frightening idea
---

I do think in a vacuum that is a relatively silly reason to reject someone's admission to college. However given the public nature of this case along with the fact that Harvard has very high standards, I tend to side with the university here, but yeah. (Either special case might be enough by itself to make me side with the university)

To be clear the reason why I don't really agree with this in general however is that I think the behavior of someone in private at the age of 16 does not strongly correlate with their behavior as an adult and especially their behavior in public settings as an adult.

All that said the conservative outrage take is awful considering the stance is basically "Why won't you let kids be racist". (If there's another way to interpret this that I haven't thought of please tell me)
---

I would award punitive damages if I could, but it's not allowed for breach of contract.
---

red sox 777 posted...

There is no better college. And no, even if he did, he wouldn't, because he didn't breach the contract.

Im just saying what if the value of

the value of a Harvard degree and experience minus the value of whatever degree he'll be able to get now

Was a negative number
---

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

There is no better college. And no, even if he did, he wouldn't, because he didn't breach the contract.

Im just saying what if the value of

the value of a Harvard degree and experience minus the value of whatever degree he'll be able to get now

Was a negative number

In that case the usual procedure is to award $1 in damages against the party that breached the contract (Harvard).
---

pyresword posted...

To be clear the reason why I don't really agree with this in general however is that I think the behavior of someone in private at the age of 16 does not strongly correlate with their behavior as an adult and especially their behavior in public settings as an adult.

Is there really that much of an accountability difference between 16 and 18

I mean sure, weve kind of arbitrarily decided there is legally, but for real
---

There was a similar case two years ago where Harvard rescinded 10 admissions for posts in a racist meme group (the main difference being that the conduct was post-admission)

This thread sums up my thoughts pretty well:
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1140823617871273984?s=21
---