I think Jimmy Dore has pretty good advice for Sanders if he wants to win. If you watch the video, he needs to be more like Trump during the 2016 campaign and call out the establishment corporatist Democrats more than he's doing.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I think Jimmy Dore has pretty good advice for Sanders if he wants to win. If you watch the video, he needs to be more like Trump during the 2016 campaign and call out the establishment corporatist Democrats more than he's doing.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Side note: It sounds like Mulvaney didn't know the more general meaning of the term "quid pro quo", and consequentially didn't really understand the public discussion about impeachment. So he wasn't aware that his description of events was contradicting Trump's claims, and too honest as a matter of oops. Poor man.
Norbert
TSLA will win
You can't be more like Trump without being more like Trump. Who might become the first US President to actually get removed from office, and deserve it.
You don't have to adopt Trump's policies and still adopt his approach. Sanders will lose the nomination this time just like 2016 because he lacks the killer instinct. This is not about left or right but how you win elections.
In other news, Hillary sinks to new lows.
Hillary Clinton appears to suggest Russians 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run - CNNPolitics
Hillary Clinton appears to suggest Russians 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run - CNNPolitics
Norbert
TSLA will win
Yeah, I preferred Obama's approach as he bombed seven countries and spent more on defense than Bush all while eroding our civil liberties.
How Obama came to bomb seven countries in six years
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/
The U.S. dropped an average of 3 bombs per hour last year
Mick Mulvaney is a lawyer. If he doesn't know what quid pro quo means, he's like a surgeon who doesn't know where the spleen is. What I think is going on is Trump is directing all of this. He's dictating to his people what they are going to say, then when they go out there and spout nonsense or things that make things worse, he blames them. Trump was initially quite happy with Mulvaney's press conference until the rest of the world started reacting to it.
Trump Tweeted that picture of Nancy Pelosi dressing him down because he thought it made him look good, but now he regrets it because the rest of the world saw it for what it is. He looks like a petulant child and she looks like a mother chastising her kid for setting fire to the curtains, which is closer to the truth.
Obama's war record is not stellar for someone who ran on getting out of wars. However it highlights what I wrote the other day. From the outside it looks easy to just cut and run from world conflicts, but when an intelligent person sits down and runs all the pros and cons, the reality is much less cut and dried.
As for Obama's defense budget, technically it was larger because of accounting. Bush kept the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq out of the budget by funding them with a series of emergency spending bills rather than a line item in the budget. Obama moved them into the budget and that made it look like the Defense budget had exploded when in reality it was largely the same, just counted differently.
The Defense Budget is way too big and Congress allocates a lot of money for things even the DoD doesn't want because the defense contractors have their ear. Additionally Obama had to deal with a hostile Congress for most of his presidency and they wanted to spend lavishly on defense, both to help their buddies in the defense business and so they could scream about the deficits (that they created). Often times budgets would land on Obama's desk with hours to spare before the government shut down and he would be faced with vetoing the bill and shutting down the government (and getting blamed for it) or sign it and try to put it behind him.
The hostility the Republicans showed Obama was much stiffer than any previous president faced from the opposite party. During the Obama era the Republicans went from the party of 'no" to the party of toddlers having a meltdown over not getting a cookie on an almost daily basis.
Norbert
TSLA will win
That I would call a policy. I was taking "approach" to refer to Trump's political tactics "fighting" his democrat opponents in election and in congress, having a too casual approach to truth, ignoring subpoenas and so on. It is all one package.
Regarding "bombing countries", which I consider a change of topic, I looked at your first link shortly, and it seemed all but Libya (which I think Obama himself considers a mistake) were fights against ISIS. Although I think the fight against ISIS should be as much as possible like a police operation, and as little as possible like a war, I think it is in the current state of the world an unavoidable fight. Even if you are a pacifist on an individual basis, it doesn't make sense for the US to be the only pacifist country on a nationalistic basis.
And Trump himself says he wants to fight ISIS, he just thinks he himself already defeated ISIS, yet he is the only one who thinks that. And he put even more troops in Saudi Arabia in "harm's way", so I don't really understand what you get so upset about.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
No, in 2016 Clinton was the preferred candidate for establishment Dems and that's who they chose. Being more aggressive back then would not have gotten him the nomination, nothing would have. This time things are different, many people saw how the "centrist" Clinton was the wrong approach, and progressives have a lot more power now. Sanders did quite well in the last debate differentiating himself from the field, the only question is how hard will the centrists will work to get anyone but Bernie in there. Bernie can't be too aggressive or he'll turn off too many of the moderates he'll need to win.
Norbert
TSLA will win
It does seem there was something vital that he didn't know or wasn't aware of. Perhaps he wasn't aware of the many denials of a quid pro quo that had been given, including by Trump. Or he assumed that in the context of the impeachment discussion, the term "quid pro quo", was used in a more narrow sense to refer to quid pro quos that are improper or illegal (which isn't the case either, but would require clarification anyway).
Otherwise how do you explain that he described very precisely and multiple times a quid pro quo situation, and not show the slightest indication of being aware that this was in an almost absurd contradiction to Trump's central claims? And, by the way, also in absurd contradiction to his later reversal claiming there was no quid pro quo. The contradiction was too straightforward, too obvious, too simple to be a result of momentary confusion. Or to be at the direction of Trump himself (I'd think).
Here is a Youtube video of Mulvaney's complete press briefing, the relevant part starts at 33:08 :
That's exactly what establishment Republicans said about Trump. We saw how that turned out.
I think voters are looking for a fighter. Warren is playing that role pretty well. Sanders speaks loudly but is always calling neoliberals his friends.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
He might lose the election - but not because he lacks killer instinct.
Trump won because he lacks shame.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
The way Turkey is mocking Trump, I can only conclude that Turkey has information that can actually lead to Trump's impeachment & removal.
US Rep Brendan Boyle on Twitter
US Rep Brendan Boyle on Twitter
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Warren has made a deal with Hillary Clinton & the establishment.
Why else do you think she gets endless positive coverage on MSNBC ?
Off Shore
Off Topic Member
Everybody and their pet skunk has information that can actually lead to Trump's impeachment & removal.
Paracelsus
Active Member
Another possibility is that being around Trump the stupid rubs off on others?
I noted this back in 2017 that when Trump gets in a jam, he sets himself on fire to distract people from whatever the issue is. To some extent it has worked. Scandals that would have been the story 24/7 for months in a normal administration usually only last days because there is something new cray cray Trump has said or did.
But he now has to admit to or commit new crimes to distract people from his other crimes, so the effectiveness of this tactic is wearing out. He's always come across as a lunatic, but now he's reaching new heights at it. There are no analogies left because he has pretty much exceeded every public figure in the modern era for public lunacy.
There are some stories of past kings or emperors who might be as nutty, but we only have stories of their behavior and there is always the possibility the historians exaggerated something. And the vast majority of people aren't aware enough of history to know who those figures were.
- Status
Similar threads
