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!!
You're not doing a lot for the argument that she wasn't just a frontrunner when it came to endorsing Hillary. She could have endorsed either at any point in the race. Waiting until Hillary had won is sort of the worst of both worlds.
That’s not my argument. The thesis of your post was that Warren endorsing Hillary over Bernie showed bad instincts because Hillary lost. I was just pointing out that Bernie was already done when she endorsed and everyone thought Hillary would win.
Ok well you also misread my argument, because my point was mostly that she would have endorsed Bernie if she were so progressive and only that if she endorsed Hillary because she thought she had the best chance of beating Trump that that would have betrayed poor instincts. What you said goes to show that Warren did not make any meaningful endorsement and simply waited until the primary was wrapped up to get involved, which imo shows that she basically had no political courage whatsoever as far as her endorsement and involvement in the 2016 primary, which goes to my point that she has not displayed political conviction in advancing a progressive agenda, or more specifically did not in that instance, which to me was an important one.
Post by abefroman1 on Sept 10, 2019 22:30:02 GMT -5
While we were arguing about whether Warren is Diet Bernie or a Hillary Shill, north carolina's congressional seat went to GOP by 2%. Yikes. Just reminds me how all it takes is a few thousand votes to swing an election to the bad guys.
LOL I mean, I read a good bit but it's not fair to put me on Meatball's level. He knows this stuff much more than I do.
I do like being flattered tho. So keep that up.
That may be true, but I think you're both a cut above most here. I'm impressed by people who have dates, names, locations, and case names all available for on-demand recall and can make connections between them. Most people don't have that thorough an understanding of the history modern politics to be able to do that. It's a humbling reminder of how, under closer examination, my depth of understanding of various issues is relatively surface level.
Last Edit: Sept 10, 2019 22:39:41 GMT -5 by Jaz - Back to Top
3.16/health 4.9/pierre kwenders 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.22/sofi tukker 5.25/hozier 6.16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 7.31/justice 9.6/st. vincent + yves tumor 9.12/sts9 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.25/charli xcx + troye sivan 9.27-29/making time 10.5/lupe fiasco 10.17/air 10.18/orville peck 11.20/caribou
While we were arguing about whether Warren is Diet Bernie or a Hillary Shill, north carolina's congressional seat went to GOP by 2%. Yikes. Just reminds me how all it takes is a few thousand votes to swing an election to the bad guys.
Of course I would read the Politics thread before my own local news. Goddamnit. The election results had to be over-turned last time due to the Republican candidate havin’ done some shady shit, or at least someone in his campaign. This new R is just a shill fer Agent Orange.
No, I wasn't connecting Biden to the lack of prosecutions at all. Your post only mentioned Republicans being responsible for deregulation. I was just reminding you that the Dems have a major role in it themselves and one is running for election right now. From my understanding, President Carter's administration signed one of the first major pieces of modern deregulation. The Democrat that introduced that bill went on to sponsor, and have his named attached to, another major deregulation bill during the Reagan years. I've seen it showed plenty of times that there is a correlation between taking Wall St. contributions and voting for deregulation measures. This seems especially true for Democrats in Congress.
What I assume to be the major deregulation bill was Gramm-Leach-Biley (1999) It's the one that seems to always gets the most attention at least. Dems in the house voted for it 75%. Dems in the Senate 84%.
Back to Obama, you undoubtedly understand the issue surrounding the financial crisis more than I do. I thought the prosecution blew the case against Bear Stearns? As in they got cocky and centered there case on iffy email exchanges that ended up turning flat under cross examination. I've read plenty over the years from professionals that seemed to think Obama and company had the evidence to push forward. Plus, all the hay made about Holder not wanting to risk fincial fallout from going after major corporations. So are we just to except that if you have money and power you are not only above the law but you can knowingly endanger the financial security of millions of people and get away with it? Why didn't they do more to try and change the laws... if the legal framework was allowing such egregious violations to take place in broad daylight? It's just hard to except that the most powerful man on the planet, who's party had control of congress, couldn't have taken more actions.
I don't think me being skeptical is anywhere near as harmful as actively taking money from Wall Street and literally deregulating the banks. Which many Democrats did on multiple occasions. It's harmful for the American people and it's harmful for Democrats future electoral chances. I understand these are complicated matters and more wide ranging than campaign contributions. So you would think the Dems could start there. Instead of not being able to keep a solid front on votes to ease back Dodd-Frank just last year. Which 16 senate and 38 house Dems voted for. The senators that voted for it took 4 times as much money from banks than those that opposed it.
So maybe Obama was a bad example but my point about corporate money is still relevant. There is plenty of reason to think it's bad for democracy and people have reason to be leery of Warren taking it in a general election. I think it will hurt her in the eyes of some voters but hopefully not too bad.
There’s a lot here that I disagree with. Holding up Jimmy Carter as an example of a deregulating Democrat when he was creating entire government oversight agencies from scratch is really off base. For the Bear Stearns trial, I guess you could say they prosecutors got “cocky” to the extent they tried to bring big charges they couldn’t prove, but “they should have tried them lesser charges” is just another way of saying what they did wasn’t illegal.
As far as why didn’t they try to do more to change the laws, Elizabeth Warren worked her ass off to try to change the laws, and she wasn’t even a Senator at the time. Someone posted that Wells Fargo clip already, Warren is the reason they don’t have a CEO.
I wasn't trying to paint Carter as some behemoth of deregulation. I just think it's important to note that the bill signed under his presidency was the beginning of modern banking deregulation. I don't see how that's off base at all. I don't think Carter did it out of malice or anything. Perhaps where I erred was lumping all the different bills together in one paragraph as if they were all the same and all overly bad. Moreover, my point on campaign contributions should have been more clearly pointing to the bills I linked evidence for.
Warren did and that's one reason people love her so much. She also clashed with the Obama administration on these issues and questioned why they didn't do more to try and prosecute crimes.
All that matters more to me then where her money comes from.
It worries me in the general sense that I don't trust money's access to power. As I think long-term change is likely impossible within a system where the elites so openly gatekeep who gets positions of power.
While I get the argument she's making about going up against Trump's horded cash, it's one that can be made for eternity. It's not always going to be someone we have good reason to trust. It would just be great if someone would break the cycle.
While we were arguing about whether Warren is Diet Bernie or a Hillary Shill, north carolina's congressional seat went to GOP by 2%. Yikes. Just reminds me how all it takes is a few thousand votes to swing an election to the bad guys.
NC-9 went for Trump by 12% and Bishop won there last night by around 2%. McCready did a lot worse in the rural parts of the district than he did in the original 2018 election. But I don't think losing this seat last night is some huge warning sign, at least not for Democrats.
Also don't forget that North Carolina is the beacon of current, corrupt, partisan gerrymandering (not to mention the racial gerrymandering) at every level.
edit: Stacey Abrams position of focusing on the election centers and stopping voting centers from being closed/expanding voting capability might be the correct direction if we look at the facts.
Last Edit: Sept 11, 2019 10:05:04 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Sept 11, 2019 10:20:55 GMT -5
So Jon Ossoff announces he's running for GA senate seat and gets a NYT interview and a John Lewis endorsement right out of the gate. I still don't understand what makes him qualified for anything or why we are suppose to except that rich, white men get to fucking fall up. I'm sorry but this dude sucks ass. He'll probably get the nom and he'll lose so I guess it doesn't matter.
edit: Stacey Abrams position of focusing on the election centers and stopping voting centers from being closed/expanding voting capability might be the correct direction if we look at the facts.
I think it certainly is in the long-term. It's hard to except because she'd have the best chance to win the GA senate seat but if she's cheated again then nothing at all is gained.
So Jon Ossoff announces he's running for GA senate and gets a NYT interview and a Jon Lewis enforcement right out of the gate. I still don't understand what makes him qualified for anything or why we are suppose to except that rich, white men get to fucking fall up. I'm sorry but this dude sucks ass. He'll probably get the nom and he'll lose so I guess i doesn't matter.
So Jon Ossoff announces he's running for GA senate and gets a NYT interview and a Jon Lewis enforcement right out of the gate. I still don't understand what makes him qualified for anything or why we are suppose to except that rich, white men get to fucking fall up. I'm sorry but this dude sucks ass. He'll probably get the nom and he'll lose so I guess i doesn't matter.
So, who wants to see some wildly unpopular opinions?
My day already sucks, so lay it on me.
On mobile so I’m not gonna try and link it, but just Google North Carolina House and you should get a result that will detail how the GOP in my state overrode a budget veto from our Democrat governor in a surprise vote while most of the Dems were at a 9/11 memorial event ON FUCKIN’ 9/11!
I’ve tried to be all: “Well, I don’t hate all Republicans! They’re not all connivin’ assholes!”
I’m over it. They are all the worst people in this country. I wish Thanos would come and snap them all the fuck out of existence.
So, who wants to see some wildly unpopular opinions?
My day already sucks, so lay it on me.
Here's this I saw on Facebook:
7 hrs At the risk of being dismissed as an unpatriotic conspiracy theorist, I deem it necessary to make the following remarks on the 18th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks:
1). #NeverForget is typically rooted in a selective and imperialist grief. Folks tend to only grieve the loss of 3,000 American lives in the attacks and the 6,000 U.S. service-members who "died fighting for our freedoms" in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what about the 1,000,000 Iraqis who were killed in this sham War on Terror? What about the 500,000 Afghans who were killed in this sham War on Terror? Where are all the slideshows with pictures and soft music for THESE victims?! Let me guess: their lives didn't matter. White nationalism is one hell of a drug.
2). People are talking about #NeverForget as if the world has ever been given a chance to forget. Ever since the attacks, officials have justified violations of a whole bunch of human and/or civil rights by uttering the magic word: "terrorism". Claiming to fight "terrorism" is the ultimate alibi and Get Out of Jail Free card. Politicians and media pundits have been foaming at the mouth about "terrorism" for at least 18 years now - repeating the nonsense ad nauseam. We cant even watch a simple sports game without being force-fed propaganda about the US military fighting "terrorism". As Henry Giroux argued: Americans are addicted to terrorism.
3). Those who say #NeverForget almost ALWAYS lack an institutional memory. They act as if the tragedy of 9/11 occurred in isolation from history or geopolitics. There is a mountain of evidence which shows that the United States government has stopped at nothing to gain and retain influence around the world. Neither truth, law, nor human life have served as barricades to money-hungry imperialists. From the Spanish-American War, to the Vietnam War, to the War on Terrorism, the US government has had the same modus operandi with respect to foreign policy for ages now. Its the same tired script over and over again: the first step is creating or exacerbating a hostile environment between the US and whatever nation/leader/group is being targeted for takeover. The second step is the US claiming that the other nation/leader/group behaved aggressively and attacked the US or its allies (i.e. bombing a building, sinking a ship, taking US citizens hostage, etc). The third step is circulating scanty and downright laughable evidence in the corporate media, thus drumming up popular support for retaliatory measures, in the name of "democracy". The fourth step is killing and displacing entire populations of people - while gobbling up resources, setting up military bases in the region, and then installing a puppet government that is sympathetic to US/Western/corporate interests. Rinse and repeat.
This is “luckily” one of the two or three nights I can get fuckin’ waste-face with bein’ back in school now. I’ve already made a pretty rough post on The Facebook, that I may look back on and be all: “I maybe should’ve been nicer.” But not right now. I am ANGRY AS FUCK.
This is “luckily” one of the two or three nights I can get fuckin’ waste-face with bein’ back in school now. I’ve already made a pretty rough post on The Facebook, that I may look back on and be all: “I maybe should’ve been nicer.” But not right now. I am ANGRY AS FUCK.
This article is trash because everyone's a hypocrite / living in paradox at some point in life.
Those who aren't are often the most un-compelling people because you don't deal with contradiction.
It's also trash because this is actually a weird purity test, that is put out there to just muddy the waters, and later add fuel to the "Bernie Bros"; "Biden's the only safe choice" rhetoric.
This seems like a good use of tax dollars and not at all a terrifying glimpse of the future. BTW, it's at the same sight as the former School of Americas. Where we trained the soldiers of right-wing dictators in Latin America.
7 hrs At the risk of being dismissed as an unpatriotic conspiracy theorist, I deem it necessary to make the following remarks on the 18th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks:
1). #NeverForget is typically rooted in a selective and imperialist grief. Folks tend to only grieve the loss of 3,000 American lives in the attacks and the 6,000 U.S. service-members who "died fighting for our freedoms" in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what about the 1,000,000 Iraqis who were killed in this sham War on Terror? What about the 500,000 Afghans who were killed in this sham War on Terror? Where are all the slideshows with pictures and soft music for THESE victims?! Let me guess: their lives didn't matter. White nationalism is one hell of a drug.
2). People are talking about #NeverForget as if the world has ever been given a chance to forget. Ever since the attacks, officials have justified violations of a whole bunch of human and/or civil rights by uttering the magic word: "terrorism". Claiming to fight "terrorism" is the ultimate alibi and Get Out of Jail Free card. Politicians and media pundits have been foaming at the mouth about "terrorism" for at least 18 years now - repeating the nonsense ad nauseam. We cant even watch a simple sports game without being force-fed propaganda about the US military fighting "terrorism". As Henry Giroux argued: Americans are addicted to terrorism.
3). Those who say #NeverForget almost ALWAYS lack an institutional memory. They act as if the tragedy of 9/11 occurred in isolation from history or geopolitics. There is a mountain of evidence which shows that the United States government has stopped at nothing to gain and retain influence around the world. Neither truth, law, nor human life have served as barricades to money-hungry imperialists. From the Spanish-American War, to the Vietnam War, to the War on Terrorism, the US government has had the same modus operandi with respect to foreign policy for ages now. Its the same tired script over and over again: the first step is creating or exacerbating a hostile environment between the US and whatever nation/leader/group is being targeted for takeover. The second step is the US claiming that the other nation/leader/group behaved aggressively and attacked the US or its allies (i.e. bombing a building, sinking a ship, taking US citizens hostage, etc). The third step is circulating scanty and downright laughable evidence in the corporate media, thus drumming up popular support for retaliatory measures, in the name of "democracy". The fourth step is killing and displacing entire populations of people - while gobbling up resources, setting up military bases in the region, and then installing a puppet government that is sympathetic to US/Western/corporate interests. Rinse and repeat.
This seems like a good use of tax dollars and not at all a terrifying glimpse of the future. BTW, it's at the sight as the former School of Americas. Where we trained the soldiers of right-wing dictators in Latin America.
This is “luckily” one of the two or three nights I can get fuckin’ waste-face with bein’ back in school now. I’ve already made a pretty rough post on The Facebook, that I may look back on and be all: “I maybe should’ve been nicer.” But not right now. I am ANGRY AS FUCK.
Runs to FB to read post.
I’m drunk and gettin’ drunker. I sa it was liked/ reacted to, but then I was all: Damn I went real hard. And deleted it.
But if someone has a screen cap...we can all see how angry as fuck I really am.
Like I’m drinkin’ an extra beer to try and dial down. Or two.