Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Do you guys think impeachment favors Trump or Dems, overall? Whether you agree with it or not.
I think overall it will cause hyper-partisans on the right to dig in their heels as many already probably have (had) their minds made up (for them). The right will continue to go further and further off the rails. One of their recent targets is Senator Graham who the idiots are saying hasn't done enough (Limbaugh, Dobbs, Carlson, etc.) to push bogus investigations. So their base will continue to be deflected and molded in the way they are told to think. Many on the left already have their minds made up as well. And more people are in favor of impeachment than not per 538's averages, but the responses are pretty much where you would expect the margin of error to be.
However, ABC News put out a poll today that said a majority of respondents actually favor removal of the president at this point. I'm not sure who all they canvassed out of the 506 people they interviewed (I think was the number), because that sounds awfully high. 70% in the ABC poll believe that Trump was wrong in pressuring a US Ally to pay to play for defense that we've already guaranteed them.
To answer your question, I don't really know. It's probably going to depend on what comes out in the public hearings, and apparently this is somewhat paralleling the Nixon impeachment where many people were extremely slow to believe he did anything wrong. If more and more evidence comes out that he fucked up royally, then I think it compounds the bad news. If they dodge and weave like they did in the Mueller hearings, they can probably hold onto a good bit of support like they did then even though they refused to answer most of the questions and also banned testimony and even at the direction of the DOJ wrote their own laws to protect him. At some point, Civics has to take over and the majority of the American people will have to see that this bunch is no good.
On a related note, the president went into the hospital due to some chest pains this weekend. I think one face saving way out for him is to quit (or not run in 2020) due to health problems. I only expect this if it happens early enough and he is convinced he's going to get pounced. Otherwise, he'll stay in and probably run a competitive electoral college race but lose bigger in the popular vote than last time (obviously depending on who wins the Democratic Primaries as they/we all pull from somewhat disparate constituencies on the center and left of the US Political Spectrum).
Yeah I came here after seeing that poll. I'm being stubborn, but I can't be talked out of thinking this will work in Trumps favor in the long run. I don't think these polls do a good job of indicating passion. There may be Trump supporters in that 70% who are like, "sure what he did was wrong, but no more wrong than the shit that goes on all the time in Washington. He shouldn't be removed for it and I can't wait to vote for him next year."
Of the 51% that believe he should be removed, I wonder how many of them REAAALLY care about this. How many of them will race to the polls to vote for Pete or Liz next year with this in mind. It is telling to me that some candidates have noted that literally 0 people on the campaign trail have brought up impeachment, and I do think the people who are saying he shouldn't be removed are likely passionate about it.
No way to really tell, but I don't like the amount of airtime this thing takes away from the primaries and from candidates presenting a positive alternative vision for the country. It will be a shame to see this topic suck up 15 minutes during the debate on Wednesday.
You guys realize that the people claiming this was a U.S. led coup are citing leaked opposition audio tapes where someone mentions they have the support of Marco Rubio in the US senate? If you are so tied to your ideology that you believe Marco fucking Rubio is overthrowing South American governments I don't know what to tell you.
Bolivians protested for weeks and their military had the balls to stand by them. If you're celebrating the situation in Chile and upset about Bolivia for no reason other than "Left good, right bad" then that's a problem.
I'm unfamiliar with the tapes you're referring to, tbh, but Marco Rubio is a US Senator. If he's not supporting regime change in Latin America, who is?
I don't think it'a waste of time at all. It's not some tea party douche threatening to impeach President Obama for some nefarious acts they never actually come out and say what they are (because they don't exist). This is literally I do what the fuck I want country's reputation/world be damned. So I don't really see this as soley political though it's more than 0% political. The right makes it more political all the time - look how they're being mean to our poor honest president kind of shit. I want this going on for as long as it takes to get to the truth. If I was a Republican, I'd be more interested in getting to the truth instead of to an outcome I found desirable. You'd think the number of embarrassing scandals and the number of scoundrels that are tied in would count for something. But Republicans already know how dumb their base is and still harp on Hillary when they can because blood pressure goes up I guess.
I want everyone who has defended this crap to suffer like the GOP did in 1974.
Also, there's no way the current GOP is making in-roads into the suburbs and are losing territory. Virginia, Kentucky and now Louisiana have taught us this for 2019. I think educated people have had enough and MAGA fux don't make up a big enough chunk of the vote to tip it that way.
You guys realize that the people claiming this was a U.S. led coup are citing leaked opposition audio tapes where someone mentions they have the support of Marco Rubio in the US senate? If you are so tied to your ideology that you believe Marco fucking Rubio is overthrowing South American governments I don't know what to tell you.
Bolivians protested for weeks and their military had the balls to stand by them. If you're celebrating the situation in Chile and upset about Bolivia for no reason other than "Left good, right bad" then that's a problem.
I'm unfamiliar with the tapes you're referring to, tbh, but Marco Rubio is a US Senator. If he's not supporting regime change in Latin America, who is?
I don't understand your question. The people of Bolivia wanted regime change. I don't think Marco Rubio really gives a shit about Latin America, he just tweets whatever plays well with latinos in Florida because he wants their vote. I sure as hell don't think he was involved in a Bolivian "coup", like people are claiming.
I'm unfamiliar with the tapes you're referring to, tbh, but Marco Rubio is a US Senator. If he's not supporting regime change in Latin America, who is?
I don't understand your question. The people of Bolivia wanted regime change. I don't think Marco Rubio really gives a shit about Latin America, he just tweets whatever plays well with latinos in Florida because he wants their vote. I sure as hell don't think he was involved in a Bolivian "coup", like people are claiming.
My point is, despite you thinking Marco Rubio is a big goofball or whatever, he's a sitting US Senator, and one of the more visible ones in the country, at that. So the premise that any involvement that he had would be laughable rings false to me.
My point is, despite you thinking Marco Rubio is a big goofball or whatever, he's a sitting US Senator, and one of the more visible ones in the country, at that. So the premise that any involvement that he had would be laughable rings false to me.
Regardless, the American left isn't centering Rubio as having any major role in the coup. Those tapes have been floated by Telesur(At least in English speaking spaces) but I haven't seen anyone of note taking them seriously. That's not to say they have no influence with more conspiratorial folks but it's blatantly wrong to claim the left's assessment of the situation in Bolivia is mostly based on that.
If you want to say most Americans don't understand the nuance of the situation and are making too many assumptions based on something like the history of CIA intervention then sure but setting up some strawman doesn't really help your case.
Getting your wisdom teeth taken out is a gateway drug. Hurting your back is a gateway drug.
Exactly.
Oxy is *the* gateway drug.
I know different people process different drugs differently, but man I *really* don't like painkillers. My first experience of using them derived from a terrible injury I sustained as a young teenager when I was hit by a car, and so I was on oxy for like a month out of necessity to manage the pain - and I hated it. Tried a few leftover pills after the fact and still did not enjoy, even when trying to just use them ~for fun~.
I had to be on them again recently for a broken foot, and ugh, I just hate oxy/hydrocodone. Makes me dizzy, dry-mouthed, lethargic, and gives me awful nightmares and vertigo when trying to sleep. All for a pretty "eh" high. Not a fan!
Considering you've found the need to respond to my threads as if you are threatened by me I offer you some peace my confused counterpart. May you find peace in your restless soul.
So there is a Twitter post/picture making the rounds of social media that was posted by Buttigieg's husband Chastain. It was taken with Mandy Moore and Tulane University students, and it states that they're excited to be in New Orleans talking with students about an inclusive future. The "gotcha" moment that people are harping on is the fact that there are no black students in the picture. There are a few students of color in the large crowd, but it looks very Caucasian. New Orleans itself is about 60% African American, and the metro area is roughly 33%. Tulane, however, has a black student population of less than 10%. I suppose you could question why he might have chosen Tulane to be the first stop in the first place, but I'm just giving background.
While this doesn't really help Pete's image issue with populations of color, it has lead me to ask some tough questions. Let's go back to the story regarding Buttigieg's Douglass Plan for Black America. When I read articles about the problems and mistakes made in the roll out of this plan, there was something that I saw mentioned repeatedly.
People keep making assertions that one of the main reasons he has trouble connecting to black voters is because he is gay. His sexuality is most definitely going to be an issue for many white, GOP voters, in particular evangelicals. But it was a nuanced assumption that had me wanting to seek out more information.
If this actually is not a significant correlation, then I can guess some of the reasons why this misguided point keeps getting brought up: institutional racism, misrepresentation of cultures, etc. His own campaign made a statement attempting to dismiss this connection, stating that "our campaign doesn't buy into the homophobia narrative floating out there. AT ALL."
But is there truth to this idea that a significant amount of black, Democratic voters would not support a gay candidate? And if so, how do we as progressives/liberals/Democrats approach this type of situation? And why am I not focusing on the white voters who would not vote for him due to homophobia? Is it presumptuous of me to even assume that all black voters vote Democrat, even if they might be homophobic? Is it appropriate for a white male like myself to even call a black person homophobic when I'm judging that term based on my own cultural qualifications for the term?
I'm not trying to perpetuate negative ideas or stereotypes. I'm honestly asking the questions because I'm genuinely curious. I also know that there aren't many black members of Inforoo, so maybe this isn't the best place for me to ask these questions.
But is there truth to this idea that a significant amount of black, Democratic voters would not support a gay candidate? And if so, how do we as progressives/liberals/Democrats approach this type of situation? And why am I not focusing on the white voters who would not vote for him due to homophobia? Is it presumptuous of me to even assume that all black voters vote Democrat, even if they might be homophobic? Is it appropriate for a white male like myself to even call a black person homophobic when I'm judging that term based on my own cultural qualifications for the term?
I'm not trying to perpetuate negative ideas or stereotypes. I'm honestly asking the questions because I'm genuinely curious. I also know that there aren't many black members of Inforoo, so maybe this isn't the best place for me to ask these questions.
The obvious place to start is to be honest and say that homophobia exists across all racial groups, etc. The polling I've seen cited is mixed on any group having a bigger problem than another. Older, religious types across all races tend to have a lower view on same sex marriage for example. I think the real key is generational, not racial. I'd also point out that African Americans support for Democrats has increased while the Dems have became increasingly vocal of LGBTQ rights. So if it was such a major problem in the AA community you'd expect to see something telling in the voting data. I'm not an expert but I don't recall ever seeing evidence that supports that.
Being from the South, and speaking only for my state, I think Pete's problems are pretty simple. People don't know him and his record on racial issues isn't very good. The racial issues are pretty self-explanatory. Why he's judged heavier than Biden I can't answer to but I assume it has to do with perceived electability and Biden's link to Obama. Southern African Americans aren't necessarily more moderate as much as they are pragmatic in wanting a winner. They have more to lose if a radical candidate fails AND they are suspicious of big promises from progressives.... as they've historically been burned by big talking progressives.
One main thing I've always heard from "experts" and activists is winning the AA vote is all about being visible in the community. Doing the ground work and building trust. That also puts Pete at a disadvantage because he's new to the national scene.
Beyond that, I'd just be putting my own criticisms in. Which are awesome and right, BTW.
this is just a narrow view of the psychedelic era via one man's story, but it's worthwhile to remember that psychedelics, when abused, can have devastating consequences. personally i'm a proponent of the use of psychedelic drugs, even though i haven't taken any in 15 years. because of acid i know that butter is way better than margarine, etc.
luckily we know a lot more than we did in the 60s, and are learning more everyday. but bottom line these are powerful substances that should be respected.
From an avid space cadet - this statement on repeat.
But is there truth to this idea that a significant amount of black, Democratic voters would not support a gay candidate? And if so, how do we as progressives/liberals/Democrats approach this type of situation? And why am I not focusing on the white voters who would not vote for him due to homophobia? Is it presumptuous of me to even assume that all black voters vote Democrat, even if they might be homophobic? Is it appropriate for a white male like myself to even call a black person homophobic when I'm judging that term based on my own cultural qualifications for the term?
I'm not trying to perpetuate negative ideas or stereotypes. I'm honestly asking the questions because I'm genuinely curious. I also know that there aren't many black members of Inforoo, so maybe this isn't the best place for me to ask these questions.
The obvious place to start is to be honest and say that homophobia exists across all racial groups, etc. The polling I've seen cited is mixed on any group having a bigger problem than another. Older, religious types across all races tend to have a lower view on same sex marriage for example. I think the real key is generational, not racial. I'd also point out that African Americans support for Democrats has increased while the Dems have became increasingly vocal of LGBTQ rights. So if it was such a major problem in the AA community you'd expect to see something telling in the voting data. I'm not an expert but I don't recall ever seeing evidence that supports that.
Being from the South, and speaking only for my state, I think Pete's problems are pretty simple. People don't know him and his record on racial issues isn't very good. The racial issues are pretty self-explanatory. Why he's judged heavier than Biden I can't answer to but I assume it has to do with perceived electable and Biden's link to Obama. Southern African Americans aren't necessarily more moderate as much as they are pragmatic in wanting a winner. They have more to lose if a radical candidate fails AND they are suspicious of big promises from progressives.... as they've historically been burned by big talking progressives.
One main thing I've always heard from "experts" and activist is winning the AA vote is all about being visible in the community. Doing the ground work and building trust. That also puts Pete at a disadvante because he's new to the national scene.
Beyond that, I'd just be putting my own criticisms in. Which are awesome and right, BTW.
Gonna go ahead and cancel the Mayor of South Bend for:
1) having terrible politics, ie standing for absolutely nothing 2) lying about endorsements from Black leaders 3) insinuating that Black people are more homophobic than others to try to explain his lack of Black support 4) whatever the fuck that dance is
The picture with Chasten is merely icing on the cake that looks bad in light of these other, more serious, things.
I made similar statements about Bernie's campaign in 2016. At least in regards to visibility and showing up for the southern primaries. We're about to see if they learned anything.
Gonna go ahead and cancel the Mayor of South Bend for:
1) having terrible politics, ie standing for absolutely nothing 2) lying about endorsements from Black leaders 3) insinuating that Black people are more homophobic than others to try to explain his lack of Black support 4) whatever the fuck that dance is
The picture with Chasten is merely icing on the cake that looks bad in light of these other, more serious, things.
Technically, I've seen that his camp has been denying the link between his sexual orientation and his lack of support in the black community. It's more of a narrative being pushed by the media with minimal support from polling data.
Technically, I've seen that his camp has been denying the link between his sexual orientation and his lack of support in the black community. It's more of a narrative being pushed by the media with minimal support from polling data.
It was a 3 month old internal campaign memo. Are there any other possibilities besides either the campaign or the consulting firm leaking it? I don't see how it's advantageous for a consultant company to get the reputation that they are indiscreet with client information. So it would have likely had to have been a staff member risking their job... for whatever reason. It's certainly possible but it's also possible a campaign that misleads the public about endorsements would leak an internal memo as well.
Also, as Ryan Grim pointed out in his "Douglas Plan" piece:
Though the campaign has since denied that it was the source of the leak, the initial article about the memo, published on October 22 by McClatchy, includes on-the-record quotes from the Buttigieg campaign — the type that customarily accompany a story that a campaign cooperates with. A spokesperson said that the campaign only cooperated after McClatchy had already obtained the memo.
But yes, they haven't been openly making the argument. There's just a chance they caused the entire conversation to begin with.
1 person will be running for president on the Democratic side. I'm not sure who is most tolerable to the rather diverse base that the democratic voters have become. Only a fraction of the people will be satisfied as Biden, Warren, Bernie and Mayor Pete all have a reasonable amount of support and to a lesser extent some of the others. What would be interesting from a history standpoint would be if no one gets the delegates needed to gain the nomination sending things into a brokered convention. I think the last Democratic one was 1972 which was a disaster. 1988 was pretty fractured as well, but in hindsight, Dukakis-Bentsen should have found a way to win and end Reagan-Bush era in its tracks instead of giving them 4 more years. If Mayor Pete were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, that would add a new dynamic to the race as apparently the following two contests (Nevada and South Carolina) are solidly behind Joe Biden. Following those are Super Tuesday (AL, AR, CA, CO, ME, MA, MN, NC, OK, TN, TX, UT, VA and VT) and Samoa as well as a week canvas of Democrats abroad. The following week is ID, MS, MI, MO and WA along with ND firehouse primaries). You could see different candidates piling up their share of delegates to bring to the convention. I haven't looked at betting odds on the possibility that no one wins in the primaries, but you'd have to think it's around 30-35% or so. If it happens, you get compromise - Warren-Pete? Biden-Warren?
^^ Looked it back up and 1952 was the last brokered convention. 72 (McGovern) was a procedural move
Post by Vic Vinegar on Nov 19, 2019 13:34:10 GMT -5
God these questions by republicans are so annoying. It seems like they are only attempting to do 2 things:
-smear the Bidens in order to try to justify trumps reaching out to Ukraine (not that this should matter but they think it does so fuck me) -throw out as big of net as possible to try to identify the whistleblower
Gonna go ahead and cancel the Mayor of South Bend for:
1) having terrible politics, ie standing for absolutely nothing 2) lying about endorsements from Black leaders 3) insinuating that Black people are more homophobic than others to try to explain his lack of Black support 4) whatever the fuck that dance is
The picture with Chasten is merely icing on the cake that looks bad in light of these other, more serious, things.
this is just a narrow view of the psychedelic era via one man's story, but it's worthwhile to remember that psychedelics, when abused, can have devastating consequences. personally i'm a proponent of the use of psychedelic drugs, even though i haven't taken any in 15 years. because of acid i know that butter is way better than margarine, etc.
luckily we know a lot more than we did in the 60s, and are learning more everyday. but bottom line these are powerful substances that should be respected.
From an avid space cadet - this statement on repeat.
I'm not entirely sure there's much benefit to legalizing LSD (I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs btw) and I think it is "playing with fire" especially when a lot of it's users are teens and young adults with developing brains but I am a strong advocate for, at the very least, increased medical research into mushrooms.
From an avid space cadet - this statement on repeat.
I'm not entirely sure there's much benefit to legalizing LSD (I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs btw) and I think it is "playing with fire" especially when a lot of it's users are teens and young adults with developing brains but I am a strong advocate for, at the very least, increased medical research into mushrooms.
I mean I have to assume you are speaking from life experience. But I can tell you that in fact Mushrooms were overly available at a young age. So I just don't think we are having the proper discussion about availability of different drugs in different places and if that is the actual factor for use.
I'm not entirely sure there's much benefit to legalizing LSD (I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs btw) and I think it is "playing with fire" especially when a lot of it's users are teens and young adults with developing brains but I am a strong advocate for, at the very least, increased medical research into mushrooms.
I mean I have to assume you are speaking from life experience. But I can tell you that in fact Mushrooms were overly available at a young age. So I just don't think we are having the proper discussion about availability of different drugs in different places and if that is the actual factor for use.
So much truth. We would go shrooming in the cow pastors. They didn't start adding whatever that stops the growth until I was out of high school.
I mean I have to assume you are speaking from life experience. But I can tell you that in fact Mushrooms were overly available at a young age. So I just don't think we are having the proper discussion about availability of different drugs in different places and if that is the actual factor for use.
So much truth. We would go shrooming in the cow pastors. They didn't start adding whatever that stops the growth until I was out of high school.
Also this is a good time to discuss the politics of legalization -- the fact is that I knew no one that were adults (20's count for this) who would ever sell a teen higher end drugs (LSD/MDMA, etc.) but the availability of shrooms, cheap alcohol, cigs, and prescription pills was incredibly high. Luckily I didn't have interest in any but one, and I didn't follow through fully into college. But from my learned knowledge as an adult -- the people who were a bit more hardcore and would visit areas of Newark dabbled in things that the rest of us had no interest or realm about. Mind you, this is like 20 mins away from where we were for the most part; but a totally different culture of drug availability (specifically cocaine and pills still). I find it socially relevant what people normalized as an intoxicant, and what gets demonized and/or is forgiven.
To be fair to Pete (ugh), he is right about the second part of that statement. We do need people who are welders and carpenters and plumbers and whatnot.
He definitely sounds like a smug asshole in the process though.
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2019 9:39:21 GMT -5 by LD - Back to Top
To be fair to Pete (ugh), he is right about the second part of that statement. We do need people who are welders and carpenters and plumbers and whatnot.
He definitely sounds like a smug asshole in the process though.
Yeah. Not trying to say anything for Pete in general, but I think the tweet is being misrepresented. His idea seems to be to put an income limit on college assistance. If you are a millionaire, you can probably handle sending your kids to college. Divert that money to other educational opportunities for people who need it. College should not be the burden of an expense it is, but making college affordable is not something that connects to every voter.