|
Again, this is a tale as old as time. See if any of this sounds familiar to any of you.
The civil rights movement was deeply unpopular at the time. Most Americans thought it was going too far and movement activists were being too extreme. Some thought its goals were wrong; others that activists were going about it the wrong way—and most white Americans were happy with the status quo as it was. And so they criticized, monitored, demonized and at times criminalized those who challenged the way things were, making dissent very costly. Most modern tributes and understandings of the movement paper over the decades when activists like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and scores of their comrades were criticized by fellow citizens and targeted as “un-American,” not just by Southern politicians but by the federal government.
In the 1960s, the vast majority of white people, South and North, disapproved of the movement’s tactics. In a May 1961 Gallup survey, only 22% of Americans approved of what the Freedom Riders were doing, and 57% of Americans said that the “sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses, and other demonstrations by Negroes were hurting the Negro’s chances of being integrated in the South.” Just before the March on Washington, Gallup found only 23% of Americans had favorable opinions of the proposed civil rights demonstration.
Lest we see this as Southerners skewing the national sample, in 1964—a year before the passage of the Voting Rights Act—a New York Times poll found a majority (57%) of New Yorkers said the civil rights movement had gone too far. “While denying any deep-seated prejudice,” the Times reported, “a large number of those questioned used the same terms to express their feelings. They spoke of Negroes’ receiving ‘everything on a silver platter’ and ‘reverse discrimination’ against whites.” Fifty-four percent of those surveyed felt the movement was going “too fast.” Nearly half said that picketing and demonstrations hurt the Negro cause, and 80% opposed school pairings to promote school desegregation in New York City public schools.
Nationally, white people’s support of the civil rights movement continued to be low throughout the 1960s. In 1966, a year after Selma and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, only 36% of white people said King was helping the cause. Eighty-five percent of white people surveyed said that demonstrations by Negroes on civil rights hurt the advancement of that cause, while 30% of black respondents felt the same. Seventy-two percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of King.
time.com
Honestly I don't blame folks for being clueless about how old and tired these arguments are or how their existence has always been rooted from the same places. I do blame them for refusing to learn though.
Ironically, despite all the bullshit propaganda about movements like BLM they're more popular than MLK was, soooo...
It's stupid to fight "the mob" label imo. Democrats spent the last two years trying to make a case over Trump's civility (was always a bad argument) and it failed to shift any support (whether they think he's civil or not). Letting him drag them into a fight about civility is probably the worst possible strategy Democrats could take into 2018-2020.
I hope people embrace the mob label and none of the windbags in Washington enjoy a meal or walk in public without feeling the full wrath of people's 1st Amendment rights.
If Democrats stop caping for their donors and start representing the millions of people that think the system threw them overboard (hell, let's be honest, if they just rustle up a believable messenger) 40+ years ago they could win, but they'd sooner chain themselves in their offices or auction themselves to lobbyists firms than do that.
|
On October 19 2018 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Again, this is a tale as old as time. See if any of this sounds familiar to any of you. Show nested quote +The civil rights movement was deeply unpopular at the time. Most Americans thought it was going too far and movement activists were being too extreme. Some thought its goals were wrong; others that activists were going about it the wrong way—and most white Americans were happy with the status quo as it was. And so they criticized, monitored, demonized and at times criminalized those who challenged the way things were, making dissent very costly. Most modern tributes and understandings of the movement paper over the decades when activists like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and scores of their comrades were criticized by fellow citizens and targeted as “un-American,” not just by Southern politicians but by the federal government.
In the 1960s, the vast majority of white people, South and North, disapproved of the movement’s tactics. In a May 1961 Gallup survey, only 22% of Americans approved of what the Freedom Riders were doing, and 57% of Americans said that the “sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses, and other demonstrations by Negroes were hurting the Negro’s chances of being integrated in the South.” Just before the March on Washington, Gallup found only 23% of Americans had favorable opinions of the proposed civil rights demonstration.
Lest we see this as Southerners skewing the national sample, in 1964—a year before the passage of the Voting Rights Act—a New York Times poll found a majority (57%) of New Yorkers said the civil rights movement had gone too far. “While denying any deep-seated prejudice,” the Times reported, “a large number of those questioned used the same terms to express their feelings. They spoke of Negroes’ receiving ‘everything on a silver platter’ and ‘reverse discrimination’ against whites.” Fifty-four percent of those surveyed felt the movement was going “too fast.” Nearly half said that picketing and demonstrations hurt the Negro cause, and 80% opposed school pairings to promote school desegregation in New York City public schools.
Nationally, white people’s support of the civil rights movement continued to be low throughout the 1960s. In 1966, a year after Selma and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, only 36% of white people said King was helping the cause. Eighty-five percent of white people surveyed said that demonstrations by Negroes on civil rights hurt the advancement of that cause, while 30% of black respondents felt the same. Seventy-two percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of King.
time.comHonestly I don't blame folks for being clueless about how old and tired these arguments are or how their existence has always been rooted from the same places. I do blame them for refusing to learn though. Ironically, despite all the bullshit propaganda about movements like BLM they're more popular than MLK was, soooo... It's stupid to fight "the mob" label imo. Democrats spent the last two years trying to make a case over Trump's civility (was always a bad argument) and it failed to shift any support (whether they think he's civil or not). Letting him drag them into a fight about civility is probably the worst possible strategy Democrats could take into 2018-2020. I hope people embrace the mob label and none of the windbags in Washington enjoy a meal or walk in public without feeling the full wrath of people's 1st Amendment rights. If Democrats stop caping for their donors and start representing the millions of people that think the system threw them overboard (hell, let's be honest, if they just rustle up a believable messenger) 40+ years ago they could win, but they'd sooner chain themselves in their offices or auction themselves to lobbyists firms than do that.
BLM does good work, I think. I don't know if it'll lead to change, but I feel like they've affected the way people view the police, which seems to me the first step toward change. Long may they continue.
It would be interesting if both sides started doing confronting the political class, but unless the Republicans attacked their guys and the Dems did the same it wouldn't exactly change much. Just further increase the ongoing factionalisation. I agree with you that facing real world consequences for decisions that affect everyone else's real world is sensible and justified.
|
On October 19 2018 18:31 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2018 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Again, this is a tale as old as time. See if any of this sounds familiar to any of you. The civil rights movement was deeply unpopular at the time. Most Americans thought it was going too far and movement activists were being too extreme. Some thought its goals were wrong; others that activists were going about it the wrong way—and most white Americans were happy with the status quo as it was. And so they criticized, monitored, demonized and at times criminalized those who challenged the way things were, making dissent very costly. Most modern tributes and understandings of the movement paper over the decades when activists like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and scores of their comrades were criticized by fellow citizens and targeted as “un-American,” not just by Southern politicians but by the federal government.
In the 1960s, the vast majority of white people, South and North, disapproved of the movement’s tactics. In a May 1961 Gallup survey, only 22% of Americans approved of what the Freedom Riders were doing, and 57% of Americans said that the “sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses, and other demonstrations by Negroes were hurting the Negro’s chances of being integrated in the South.” Just before the March on Washington, Gallup found only 23% of Americans had favorable opinions of the proposed civil rights demonstration.
Lest we see this as Southerners skewing the national sample, in 1964—a year before the passage of the Voting Rights Act—a New York Times poll found a majority (57%) of New Yorkers said the civil rights movement had gone too far. “While denying any deep-seated prejudice,” the Times reported, “a large number of those questioned used the same terms to express their feelings. They spoke of Negroes’ receiving ‘everything on a silver platter’ and ‘reverse discrimination’ against whites.” Fifty-four percent of those surveyed felt the movement was going “too fast.” Nearly half said that picketing and demonstrations hurt the Negro cause, and 80% opposed school pairings to promote school desegregation in New York City public schools.
Nationally, white people’s support of the civil rights movement continued to be low throughout the 1960s. In 1966, a year after Selma and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, only 36% of white people said King was helping the cause. Eighty-five percent of white people surveyed said that demonstrations by Negroes on civil rights hurt the advancement of that cause, while 30% of black respondents felt the same. Seventy-two percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of King.
time.comHonestly I don't blame folks for being clueless about how old and tired these arguments are or how their existence has always been rooted from the same places. I do blame them for refusing to learn though. Ironically, despite all the bullshit propaganda about movements like BLM they're more popular than MLK was, soooo... It's stupid to fight "the mob" label imo. Democrats spent the last two years trying to make a case over Trump's civility (was always a bad argument) and it failed to shift any support (whether they think he's civil or not). Letting him drag them into a fight about civility is probably the worst possible strategy Democrats could take into 2018-2020. I hope people embrace the mob label and none of the windbags in Washington enjoy a meal or walk in public without feeling the full wrath of people's 1st Amendment rights. If Democrats stop caping for their donors and start representing the millions of people that think the system threw them overboard (hell, let's be honest, if they just rustle up a believable messenger) 40+ years ago they could win, but they'd sooner chain themselves in their offices or auction themselves to lobbyists firms than do that. BLM does good work, I think. I don't know if it'll lead to change, but I feel like they've affected the way people view the police, which seems to me the first step toward change. Long may they continue. It would be interesting if both sides started doing confronting the political class, but unless the Republicans attacked their guys and the Dems did the same it wouldn't exactly change much. Just further increase the ongoing factionalisation. I agree with you that facing real world consequences for decisions that affect everyone else's real world is sensible and justified.
BLM are no Black Panthers but they're more mainstreamed and watered down than even MLK was before he was assassinated. They have virtually no class analysis which is problematic but as you said they helped make the situation with police more real for millions of people for which they deserve credit.
That's why it's critical to have an intersectional framework where people can coalesce around the (already popular btw) class arguments (Medicare-for-all, campaign finance reform, breaking up the banks, etc) and while they'll have to do the work eventually, the race arguments can be the part some of the coalition doesn't prioritize but supports as "a party".
An ideal leader/figure would be one that can believably make both of those arguments, for which the Democrats are sorely lacking. Personally I think we'd be better off with Democrats disintegrating as a party and a new opposition party forming in their place. They are beyond salvaging as a party apparatus imo.
|
I think you might have a point. As a Brit it's very hard for me not to see Labour = Democrats, but they really aren't the same thing, and it's hard for me to see the exact ways that they're different at times. But it's absolutely true listening to them talk that they're not dissimilar to the Republicans. They do support some more left-leaning policies (see: ACA), but they see eye to eye on a lot of dangerous things. Electorally speaking that's difficult because you're never going to get people like yourself actually enthusiastic, they'll just trudge along and hope it works out okay this time. Or refuse, as you do these days.
Plus what America needs right now is a violent surge to the left to re-align the political axis before you switch over to one of the extreme philosophies at either end of the spectrum (fascism makes the most sense, but it's just as likely that everyone snaps and goes for communism; that is more or less how the original revolution happened after all).
So barring extremely damaging revolution, the end of the Democrats and a new more left wing opposition might be a better solution.
BUT
With how your electoral system works, is that practical? Campaigns are ludicrously expensive now, basically impossible without donor support. You want a candidate and a party that's an outright danger to that system. Do you not think it'd be blocked?
|
On October 19 2018 21:15 iamthedave wrote:
I think you might have a point. As a Brit it's very hard for me not to see Labour = Democrats, but they really aren't the same thing, and it's hard for me to see the exact ways that they're different at times. But it's absolutely true listening to them talk that they're not dissimilar to the Republicans. They do support some more left-leaning policies (see: ACA), but they see eye to eye on a lot of dangerous things. Electorally speaking that's difficult because you're never going to get people like yourself actually enthusiastic, they'll just trudge along and hope it works out okay this time. Or refuse, as you do these days.
Plus what America needs right now is a violent surge to the left to re-align the political axis before you switch over to one of the extreme philosophies at either end of the spectrum (fascism makes the most sense, but it's just as likely that everyone snaps and goes for communism; that is more or less how the original revolution happened after all).
So barring extremely damaging revolution, the end of the Democrats and a new more left wing opposition might be a better solution.
BUT
With how your electoral system works, is that practical? Campaigns are ludicrously expensive now, basically impossible without donor support. You want a candidate and a party that's an outright danger to that system. Do you not think it'd be blocked?
I would imagine it pretty tough to stick with Democrats if they lose through 2020, but Democrats are stubborn that way.
Of course, probably killed. Not exactly an enticing job description, but neither was Washington's. It's also why I've largely given up on electoral politics at the national level.
Feels like a gameshow for idiots, sycophants, and nerds to me most of the time.
|
On October 19 2018 21:15 iamthedave wrote:
With how your electoral system works, is that practical? Campaigns are ludicrously expensive now, basically impossible without donor support. You want a candidate and a party that's an outright danger to that system. Do you not think it'd be blocked?
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization. Or something like that =)
|
On October 19 2018 17:21 iamthedave wrote:
Shrug. Yes, it'd be nice, but what do you expect? Neither side is going to call out it's own allies. It's pretty hilarious to see anyone on the right call the left 'an unhinged mob' after Charlottesville. What's the point of even asking for non-partisanship when you aren't willing to offer it? You're a literal case in point of why it isn't happening and probably won't.
Your (as in, the US) political language has been full of violence for years and its now beginning to play out in the public sphere rather than just among fringe groups. And it's most likely going to get a lot worse before it gets better, given how many of those fringe groups are actively antagonising the other side to make it worse.
Including, you know, the President. Oh wait, he's not a fringe group.
“But Charlottesville” is expected. It’s like the left’s Benghazi meme. And so recent after they couldn’t even get a legit group to march on its anniversary. So as far as calling out allies ... we’ll charlottesville doesn’t have active allies to even shield, and you can’t bring ourself to call out your own, cowardly hiding behind the “both sides do it” excuse.
Another difference is that the journalists covering it on major news outlets play the side of liberal activists instead of reporters (and in the clip, moderators.) But point this out and people shriek that it’s an assault on the press. Haha, no it’s one more thing driving Democrats deeper into not offending its activist fringe wing. And never letting your political enemies rest, and kicking the pro-life activists on the street is just Charlottesville. Right. Midterms are looking up.
|
On October 19 2018 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2018 21:15 iamthedave wrote:
I think you might have a point. As a Brit it's very hard for me not to see Labour = Democrats, but they really aren't the same thing, and it's hard for me to see the exact ways that they're different at times. But it's absolutely true listening to them talk that they're not dissimilar to the Republicans. They do support some more left-leaning policies (see: ACA), but they see eye to eye on a lot of dangerous things. Electorally speaking that's difficult because you're never going to get people like yourself actually enthusiastic, they'll just trudge along and hope it works out okay this time. Or refuse, as you do these days.
Plus what America needs right now is a violent surge to the left to re-align the political axis before you switch over to one of the extreme philosophies at either end of the spectrum (fascism makes the most sense, but it's just as likely that everyone snaps and goes for communism; that is more or less how the original revolution happened after all).
So barring extremely damaging revolution, the end of the Democrats and a new more left wing opposition might be a better solution.
BUT
With how your electoral system works, is that practical? Campaigns are ludicrously expensive now, basically impossible without donor support. You want a candidate and a party that's an outright danger to that system. Do you not think it'd be blocked? I would imagine it pretty tough to stick with Democrats if they lose through 2020, but Democrats are stubborn that way. Of course, probably killed. Not exactly an enticing job description, but neither was Washington's. It's also why I've largely given up on electoral politics at the national level. Feels like a gameshow for idiots, sycophants, and nerds to me most of the time.
Couldn't the same have been said for the Republicans when Obama was re-elected though? One lost election isn't the end of a party, it just means rough times for eight years. Usually eight years, anyway. I seem to recall you haven't had that many 4 year Presidents.
On October 19 2018 23:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2018 17:21 iamthedave wrote:
Shrug. Yes, it'd be nice, but what do you expect? Neither side is going to call out it's own allies. It's pretty hilarious to see anyone on the right call the left 'an unhinged mob' after Charlottesville. What's the point of even asking for non-partisanship when you aren't willing to offer it? You're a literal case in point of why it isn't happening and probably won't.
Your (as in, the US) political language has been full of violence for years and its now beginning to play out in the public sphere rather than just among fringe groups. And it's most likely going to get a lot worse before it gets better, given how many of those fringe groups are actively antagonising the other side to make it worse.
Including, you know, the President. Oh wait, he's not a fringe group. “But Charlottesville” is expected. It’s like the left’s Benghazi meme. And so recent after they couldn’t even get a legit group to march on its anniversary. So as far as calling out allies ... we’ll charlottesville doesn’t have active allies to even shield, and you can’t bring ourself to call out your own, cowardly hiding behind the “both sides do it” excuse. Another difference is that the journalists covering it on major news outlets play the side of liberal activists instead of reporters (and in the clip, moderators.) But point this out and people shriek that it’s an assault on the press. Haha, no it’s one more thing driving Democrats deeper into not offending its activist fringe wing. And never letting your political enemies rest, and kicking the pro-life activists on the street is just Charlottesville. Right. Midterms are looking up.
The problem, D, is it's you saying this. You have absolutely no credibility on any matter that involves non-partisanship. If I were to call out people on the left - which I have - you'd immediately declare 'A HA, VICTORY!' and not even consider calling out the people on your side, who are numerous and easy to list. I mean, you couldn't even manage 'yeah, Charlottesville was awful', which I'd have been fine with. But it's you, so even THAT level of empathy is impossible. You always pivot and avoid conceding anything, even a point that's obvious and costs nothing to concede.
Conversely, I'm not hiding behind anything. This is the consequence of the politics that you openly approve of. Hence 'shrug'. You should be rubbing your hands with glee. This is what you want. Be happy.
Journalists talk about assaults on the press because the President and the right is launching a full throated attack on the press. So they talk about the thing that is happening because the thing they are talking about is happening. See how that works?
So yeah. You continue to be the very thing you are complaining about.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Historically the 4 year presidents are usually the ones who succeeded a president of their same party. The incumbent advantage is substantial. It’s far from a “rule” but in this case I think Trump is on track for a second term.
|
On October 20 2018 00:03 LegalLord wrote:
Historically the 4 year presidents are usually the ones who succeeded a president of their same party. The incumbent advantage is substantial. It’s far from a “rule” but in this case I think Trump is on track for a second term.
I think the improving economy is the clincher. Number 1 issue going into the election was the economy, I think, and Trump got the nation's (somewhat begruding) support as the guy to handle it. You can quibble about the nature of the economy and whether or not he really improved it, as you can for anyone who benefits from someone else's policies, but all that matters is that it got better, and measurably so, during his four years.
"I made your life better" is a very nice platform for a second run. Especially when it's already been proven that 'Trump is human garbage' doesn't have much of a hold on the electorate when it matters. It'll stop lots of people voting for him, but it won't necessarily make them vote for someone else.
If he can land a genuinely good trade deal during the next two, he'll be golden. As GH has pointed out, the Democrats don't have a strong up and comer. Bernie's an outsider chance, and he's still popular, but inside the gang, there's really just Kamala Harris. And plenty of people are threatening to run who will be popular with the donors but don't offer much overall.
|
Trump already landed a really good trade deal: the USMCA. People who think that it is just re-branded NAFTA don't understand it.
|
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ready to go through the 2016 election all over again?
Philippe Reines, who worked for Hillary Clinton going back to 2002 and was her senior adviser at the State Department, made the argument to Politico Friday that the former Democratic nominee might actually be the party's best hope for defeating Trump in 2020. He said no other Democrat has "anywhere near a base of 32 million people," especially not Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The party, he feels, shouldn't dismiss her as a failed candidate because she's "smarter" and "tougher" than most, and she "could raise money easier than most."
But it doesn't sound like this is just wishful thinking on his part. He really thinks it could happen, saying the chances of Clinton running in 2020 are "not zero.”
Publicly, Clinton has said she will not run again, but Reines doesn't sound so sure she'll keep her word on that. Politico explored Clinton's careful re-entry into the political arena, noting that she's going on tour with former President Bill Clinton this fall and has reportedly even called up journalists who cover the White House to put out "the occasional feeler."
Despite her non-zero interest in public office, her favorability is even lower than it was in 2016. A recent Gallup poll found that Clinton is now polling at 36 percent — five points lower than President Trump. Read more about her political future at Politico.
This is what you call a trial balloon authorized by the Clinton camp. And it's pretty obvious what they're thinking. The current field of Democrat contenders is a wasteland, with the most likely candidate to emerge being a currently-under-the-radar progressive radical who will get ROFL-stomped in the election. Hillary knows that she'll easily suck up all of the big money Democrat donors, which should grease the treads for her nomination.
|
On October 20 2018 00:35 xDaunt wrote:BAHAHAHAHAHA!Show nested quote +Ready to go through the 2016 election all over again?
Philippe Reines, who worked for Hillary Clinton going back to 2002 and was her senior adviser at the State Department, made the argument to Politico Friday that the former Democratic nominee might actually be the party's best hope for defeating Trump in 2020. He said no other Democrat has "anywhere near a base of 32 million people," especially not Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The party, he feels, shouldn't dismiss her as a failed candidate because she's "smarter" and "tougher" than most, and she "could raise money easier than most."
But it doesn't sound like this is just wishful thinking on his part. He really thinks it could happen, saying the chances of Clinton running in 2020 are "not zero.”
Publicly, Clinton has said she will not run again, but Reines doesn't sound so sure she'll keep her word on that. Politico explored Clinton's careful re-entry into the political arena, noting that she's going on tour with former President Bill Clinton this fall and has reportedly even called up journalists who cover the White House to put out "the occasional feeler."
Despite her non-zero interest in public office, her favorability is even lower than it was in 2016. A recent Gallup poll found that Clinton is now polling at 36 percent — five points lower than President Trump. Read more about her political future at Politico. This is what you call a trial balloon authorized by the Clinton camp. And it's pretty obvious what they're thinking. The current field of Democrat contenders is a wasteland, with the most likely candidate to emerge being a currently-under-the-radar progressive radical who will get ROFL-stomped in the election. Hillary knows that she'll easily suck up all of the big money Democrat donors, which should grease the treads for her nomination.
Painfully feasible.
I have to believe if Bernie runs again he'll win the nomination this time round. I don't think the Democrats will try and dirty him again after what happened last time. That little scandal did them no favours at all.
|
This country needs another competition between electable yet corrupt and socialism is trendy. Except corrupt won last time, and septuagenarians aren’t known for learning and changing.
By the way, this has to be a Republican turncoat. Otherwise, no fucking way that Hillary gets back in the news this close to midterms.
|
On October 20 2018 00:57 Danglars wrote:
This country needs another competition between electable yet corrupt and socialism is trendy. Except corrupt won last time, and septuagenarians aren’t known for learning and changing.
By the way, this has to be a Republican turncoat. Otherwise, no fucking way that Hillary gets back in the news this close to midterms.
Are they a Republican turncoat or more of same person in the democratic party? Hilary lost twice already. Third time isn't the charm.
|
On October 20 2018 01:28 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2018 00:57 Danglars wrote:
This country needs another competition between electable yet corrupt and socialism is trendy. Except corrupt won last time, and septuagenarians aren’t known for learning and changing.
By the way, this has to be a Republican turncoat. Otherwise, no fucking way that Hillary gets back in the news this close to midterms. Are they a Republican turncoat or the only sane person in the democratic party? Hilary lost twice already. Third time isn't the charm.
A Democratic former aide puts concrete pull quotes as substance to put Hillary back in the news as a potential candidate. I don’t understand how you square “the only sane person” and “third time isn’t the charm” when he’s saying her chances are better than thought.
I meant to say it’s more likely he’s a Republican now, a Democratic turncoat. The last thing America needs to be reminded of is the prospect of one of the least liked major party candidates in history standing again to win the primaries.
Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide has said she could make another run for the White House.
Philippe Reines, a veteran spokeman and consigliere who served as her gatekeeper in the Senate and State Department and played Donald trump during 2016 debate preparations, encouraged Democrats to look at Clinton again and laid out a rationale for a 2020 candidacy.
“It’s curious why Hillary Clinton’s name isn’t in the mix—either conversationally or in formal polling—as a 2020 candidate,” he told told Politico. “She’s younger than Donald Trump by a year. She’s younger than Joe Biden by four years. Is it that she’s run before? This would be Bernie Sanders’ second time, and Biden’s third time. Is it lack of support? She had 65 million people vote for her.”
It was a mistake for Democrats to punish Clinton for the mistakes she made in 2016. “Chalking the loss up to her being a failed candidate is an oversimplification,” he said. “She is smarter than most, tougher than most, she could raise money easier than most, and it was an absolute fight to the death.”
Alternate explanation: She’s trading in political favors in exchange for staying out of the running.
|
I can't English today.
I tend to agree with Greenhorizons these days that the Democratic party is stupid enough to run Hilary again and that your alternate explanation is too optimistic.
|
Nellie Ohr invokes spousal privilege to refuse to answer questions to a House committee. You may or may not remember that she was a Fusion GPS contractor during the time of the Steele dossier. Her husband works at the justice department and was one of the routes the dossier took between Democratic opposition document to FISA application and eventual domestic surveillance. This thing will drag on and on.
Democrats, and probably some justice department officials, hope to retake the House to put an end to these various investigations. That gives some motivation for delaying tactics from all parties.
|
I'm rather disappointed in the progress on the Russia-gate stuff. The House is playing with kid gloves and not using the subpoena power to the fullest extent that it could. Unlike the charges being made against Trump, there is all sorts of evidence that parts of the DOJ, Fusion GPS, and even British Intelligence are dirty and implicated in this mess. Glenn Simpson pleading the 5th was yet another huge red flag. It simply boggles the mind that there isn't more urgency to surface this stuff. Also, I have absolutely no idea why they are playing footsies with Rod Rosenstein, though apparently he will be testifying to four members of the judiciary committee next week. Lastly, I'm disappointed in Trump for holding up the FISA application declassification. The country needs to know what happened.
|
On October 20 2018 05:34 xDaunt wrote:
I'm rather disappointed in the progress on the Russia-gate stuff. The House is playing with kid gloves and not using the subpoena power to the fullest extent that it could. Unlike the charges being made against Trump, there is all sorts of evidence that parts of the DOJ, Fusion GPS, and even British Intelligence are dirty and implicated in this mess. Glenn Simpson pleading the 5th was yet another huge red flag. It simply boggles the mind that there isn't more urgency to surface this stuff. Also, I have absolutely no idea why they are playing footsies with Rod Rosenstein, though apparently he will be testifying to four members of the judiciary committee next week. Lastly, I'm disappointed in Trump for holding up the FISA application declassification. The country needs to know what happened.
Isn't like 90% of the people in Trump's immediate circle during the campaign now up on charges? I know you've set a very high standard for validity, but it's fairly obvious there's a few small fires from that camp, even if it turns out Trump didn't sit at any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
