US PoliERA 2019 |OT2| #PresidentPelosi

Oct 25, 2017
1,799
Huh...Omar is saying the only reason people support Israel is the "benjamins baby". Lobbying is what lobbyists do.

The Teachers Union lobbying budget is like 5 million dollars - is that bad? Are Dems only supporting teachers because of money?

But the bad part about Omar's insinuation is that that Jewish Money ruling the world is a very very core anti-semitic belief. She can easily make the same point in a better way.
How about we get all of this money out of politics period? I know Omar to be a kind hearted and understanding person. We all knew she was talking about money in politics and not something specific to Jewish peoples. Optics, ya, whatever. AIPAC is still one of the most evil lobbies in this country alongside the NRA.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,191
My old job was organizing student events. There really is nothing worse than booking a room too large for the amount of people that actually show up. It's incredibly embarrassing to everyone involved and I can sympathize with Tulsi on this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,321
My old job was organizing student events. There really is nothing worse than booking a room too large for the amount of people that actually show up. It's incredibly embarrassing to everyone involved and I can sympathize with Tulsi on this.
The small nonprofit I used to work at would chronically book rooms too small to make it appear like a madhouse. I hated it because it often meant complete chaos in every aspect.

There's gotta be a middle ground.
---

Convince me that this guy isn't Milo in "disguise."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aj...on-red-carpet/38hP2ZdXXUpdDDZpnjkzlO/amp.html

 
Last edited:

Chikor

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,223
You ain't gonna do the whole "my views have evolved", you gonna straight up jump to "I'm from Jamaica, we love the ganja!" like it's nothing?
I mean, you know there were video cameras in 2014 and there's a record of you talking about this issue, right?

Hahahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahaha
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,085
In other news, the effectiveness of voter ID seems negligible. It doesn’t mean that one person being denied to vote is okay, but it does throw some cold water on some Wisconsin narratives post-2016.

 
Oct 25, 2017
8,307
Some issues move fast, and thinking changes fast. Progressives should be the ones who can appreciate that better than others.
Right? If you're just going to attack everyone who comes around to your view for flip-flopping, there's no incentive for them to do so.

I think it's okay to question the sincerity sometimes (see Tulsi's night and day shift on LGBT issues), but you don't build a successful social movement from everyone being 100% right from the getgo.
 

ShadowSwordmaster

Community Resetter
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,113
Seriously. I thought the defeatism wave would cool down for a bit after the midterms, but my goodness it’s only gotten worse.

It’s just constant negativity and panicking.
The midterms should be an example of people putting in the work and proving what we can do if we act. I think there is a group of people on this website are just wanting their own narrative to be true.
 

Chikor

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,223
Right? If you're just going to attack everyone who comes around to your view for flip-flopping, there's no incentive for them to do so.
I have no problem with people changing their mind, I do have problem with people trying to pretend like they didn't change their mind, which is what Kamala Harris is doing here, and that shit is gross.
I mean, she actively campaigned against legalization as recently as 2014. That was an actual campaign issue and she went against it.

Good on her for getting on the right side of history here, but I think she also need to explain how come she was adamantly against it very recently. The fact that she smoked actually make this whole shit worse. Like, you put people in jail for shit you also did and you fought to keep that practice going.
 
Dec 1, 2017
2,267
The Land
Right? If you're just going to attack everyone who comes around to your view for flip-flopping, there's no incentive for them to do so.

I think it's okay to question the sincerity sometimes (see Tulsi's night and day shift on LGBT issues), but you don't build a successful social movement from everyone being 100% right from the getgo.
Sincerity is almost a non factor when it comes to issues that exhibit a strong groundswell of support from the majority in the party. That's what we want, so candidates should be outwardly supportive of it regardless of previous stances or messaging.

Are you talking about weed legalization?
That's certainly an issue that I would expect candidates to appear to have flip flopped on if they were on record about it years ago.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,799
You ain't gonna do the whole "my views have evolved", you gonna straight up jump to "I'm from Jamaica, we love the ganja!" like it's nothing?
I mean, you know there were video cameras in 2014 and there's a record of you talking about this issue, right?

Hahahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahaha
Her views haven't evolved in the way you're implying. Marijuana activist have been on her for that video for years, as seen here through comments made by journalist and marijuana activist David Downs:

That fact bears mentioning after Ron Gold publicly noted he supports legalization to the KCRA news channel. KCRA then asked Harris about her opinion on the matter. In a video posted Tuesday, Harris laughed and said Gold was entitled to his opinion.

What an abject lack of leadership from the top law enforcement official of the eighth largest economy in the world.

Harris video-taped guffaw is especially galling in the face of the bombshell endorsement of national legalization by the New York Times last week.
But, as he notes:

During the failed bid to put legalization on the 2014 California ballot, Harris’ Office gave a rosy assessment of legalization’s benefits.

She hasn’t threatened doctors and obstructed the implementation of the people’s will like Dan Lungren did in 1996 when Prop 215 passed.

She also did her job and green-lit research hemp for California this year.
https://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2014/08/06/kamala-harris-laughs-at-pot-legalization/

California moved ahead of the entire country on the pot issue largely because of the executive and legislative team that was in place during those times, not in spite of it. These people were never against anything.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,354
Right? If you're just going to attack everyone who comes around to your view for flip-flopping, there's no incentive for them to do so.

I think it's okay to question the sincerity sometimes (see Tulsi's night and day shift on LGBT issues), but you don't build a successful social movement from everyone being 100% right from the getgo.
Talking about how people only recently came around to an issue is just a standard part of a primary battle. See: everyone here that gives Bernie shit for his views and votes on gun control when he moved from campaigning in Vermont to campaigning nationally. Because people naturally prefer candidates that held their current position for as long as possible.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,444

I'm not great at understanding the nuances of anti-semitism, but its kind of wild how much a tweet I read as a criticism of the influence of money in politics has exploded into DEFCON 1 level issue.
 
Oct 26, 2017
918
Northern VA
The midterms should be an example of people putting in the work and proving what we can do if we act. I think there is a group of people on this website are just wanting their own narrative to be true.
Spot on. November was a turning point and evidence that it's not all downhill.

I'll still read OT for the occasional stupid threads but have started to avoid the political ones. PoliEra will always be where it's at.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,799
I have no problem with people changing their mind, I do have problem with people trying to pretend like they didn't change their mind, which is what Kamala Harris is doing here, and that shit is gross.
I mean, she actively campaigned against legalization as recently as 2014. That was an actual campaign issue and she went against it.

Good on her for getting on the right side of history here, but I think she also need to explain how come she was adamantly against it very recently. The fact that she smoked actually make this whole shit worse. Like, you put people in jail for shit you also did and you fought to keep that practice going.
Her actual stated position was:

Harris has said California should wait and watch how Colorado resolves issues that arise from its legalization of pot.
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...ala-harris-re-elected-state-attorney-general/
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,307
Talking about how people only recently came around to an issue is just a standard part of a primary battle. See: everyone here that gives Bernie shit for his views and votes on gun control when he moved from campaigning in Vermont to campaigning nationally. Because people naturally prefer candidates that held their current position for as long as possible.
tbf she co-sponsored Booker's marijuana bill as early as last year. I don't know if she made a statement of public support earlier than that.

Of course, that was probably a move anticipating a presidential run, but it's not like she flipped on this like yesterday.

The midterms should be an example of people putting in the work and proving what we can do if we act. I think there is a group of people on this website are just wanting their own narrative to be true.
But then you have people misinterpreting even the House results based on their own ignorance. Like some guy the other day was saying the House results weren't important because "it was a good map for Democrats" based on a comment he overheard on CNN.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,364
Mar 9, 2018
204
I never understood why candidates having evolving stances is seen as a bad thing. Culture and society changes quickly and people’s thinking changes with it. It’s normal. There are plenty of things I believed in 2014 that I don’t believe any longer.

Even if we’re being cynical and think Kamala changed her stance on marijuana strictly to be more electable...isn’t that democracy working as intended? I want my representatives to advocate for the interests of the people who elect them, not forever be beholden to comments they made in the past because they are afraid of appearing inconsistent.
 

Slayven

You probably post about me on another board.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,333

I'm not great at understanding the nuances of anti-semitism, but its kind of wild how much a tweet I read as a criticism of the influence of money in politics has exploded into DEFCON 1 level issue.
Did they get on Trump for his Soros' tweet? Not that they are the same, but do they call out actual defamation ?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,131

I'm not great at understanding the nuances of anti-semitism, but its kind of wild how much a tweet I read as a criticism of the influence of money in politics has exploded into DEFCON 1 level issue.
Where the fuck have they been this entire administrations 2 years? Fuck them for this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,354
tbf she co-sponsored Booker's marijuana bill as early as last year. I don't know if she made a statement of public support earlier than that.

Of course, that was probably a move anticipating a presidential run, but it's not like she flipped on this like yesterday.
Yeah it's not an issue for me but in 2010 she supported medical use but not recreational use and helped stop Prop 19. A bit behind the curve but nothing egregious.

My point is more about why this sort of attack happens during primaries. People will find any difference they can to make their preferred candidate look better and try to turn small things into big things.
 
Last edited:
I see he's up and extra NPD this morning.

Saw this in the Brexit thread, figured people here would be as interested in it as anyone there


@ZDNet

Russia to disconnect from the internet as part of a planned test (link: https://zd.net/2Sm6nSp) zd.net/2Sm6nSp by
@campuscodi
Getting nervous there, Vova? :D

also, frankly, I don't won't these people influencing democratic politics. so good riddance.

the whole Glenn Beck, Samantha Bee arc was embarrassing. hate that Ana Navarro and Bill Kristol are on "our" side. the whole thing is so depressing.
One of the greatest gifts to the crooks and traitors right now would be to figleaf the fight for this country as partisan witch hunt.

Besides, a few million NTs aint stopping this demographic woke train, especially when they leave the GOP.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,285

I'm not great at understanding the nuances of anti-semitism, but its kind of wild how much a tweet I read as a criticism of the influence of money in politics has exploded into DEFCON 1 level issue.
The last paragraph calls out Omar specifically, purposefully.

As for Nadler's comment before, he should probably speak with Omar directly. But at least Nadler was at the airport representing constituents when the first travel ban was put into place.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,024
Ann Arbor, MI
You ain't gonna do the whole "my views have evolved", you gonna straight up jump to "I'm from Jamaica, we love the ganja!" like it's nothing?
I mean, you know there were video cameras in 2014 and there's a record of you talking about this issue, right?

Hahahahahaha
hahahahaha
hahaha
I trust you are going to be just as harsh on going after Bernie for evolving on crime policy and gun rights.
 

Chikor

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,223
Her views haven't evolved in the way you're implying. Marijuana activist have been on her for that video for years, as seen here through comments made by journalist and marijuana activist David Downs:



But, as he notes:



https://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2014/08/06/kamala-harris-laughs-at-pot-legalization/

California moved ahead of the entire country on the pot issue largely because of the executive and legislative team that was in place during those times, not in spite of it. These people were never against anything.
Again, she was against it in 2014, 2 years after Washington and Colorado legalized it, neither she nor California were ahead of anything at this point.
And I think that the fact the her office released that assessment make her resisting legalization worse, not better.

I'm more than happy that she changed her mind on this, I really am, I mean, I suspect she didn't really change her mind on any of that. I think it's just that "tough on crime" is no longer a winning position for her to have.
And getting your "law and order" credentials by being "tough on crime" is a very common tactic that Democrats employs, you see it in people like Biden and Bill Clinton, and it's shit, and it's ruin lives, and I honestly think if we keep letting them handwave such crap people will keep on doing it.
But if she gets dragged for this shit, prosecutors with national aspiration would start thinking that such stances are bad for their career, I think you already starting to see it, and I think that's a great change.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,306
Shutdown has like 2 days to get a deal as iirc, the house is bound by a new rule that requires a bill be on the floor for like 2-3? days or something before a vote. So we're in for it.
 

Chikor

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,223
I trust you are going to be just as harsh on going after Bernie for evolving on crime policy and gun rights.
I don't know why you would think I'm a Bernie fan, but for the record, I am not, not at the slightest.
But seriously, why would you bring Bernie into this discussion?
I mean, we all been on the internet, I can't think of many examples of online discussions that were improved by unnecessarily adding Bernie Sanders to the mix.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,321
Where the fuck have they been this entire administrations 2 years? Fuck them for this.
Agreed. This is hypocritical as fuck.

I didn't like her statements, and I think it was a really bad look, but I don't think a formal reprimand is in order for this when most Republicans say worse shit all the damn time and nothing is done. I do think Nancy should talk to her privately about it, but it doesn't even need to be made public imo.

If her constituents are unsatisfied, they will show it in the polls.

The pro-Maduro comments, though, deserved more than the zero attention they were given outside of polinut circles. Those alone were completely disqualifying for me and were Tootsie pro-Assad level of bullshit.
 

Chikor

Banned
Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,223
For the last time - the controversy isn't about criticizing Israel. It was her phrasing her argument using millennium old antisemitic dog whistles in a joking manner.
Can you find me one person who gave her shit for that but was okay with other criticisms of AIPAC?
I'm struggling to think of one.
I'm sure you can find like one, but most of the shit that she's getting are from the "if you're not with Netanyahu you're an anti-semite" crowd, and I'm not sure it's super smart to signal boost that crap.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,355
Kentucky
So left or right, if you criticize Israeli foreign policy you are antisemetic.
If a Jewish person tells you that something has antisemitic undertones you should listen. Same as if a black person tells you that what you’re saying has racist undertones. I don’t give a fuck about AIPAC or Israel or any of that shit. That stereotype has been used against me for all of my life, so I’m gonna call it out, and fuck you and anyone else who thinks I or any other Jewish person who’s hurt by this as an ulterior motive. Stop enabling discrimination. Fucking stop.

I think her heart’s in the right place. I just think she should choose her words more carefully. Apparently that makes me an apartheid apologist according to some folks.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,514
It’s pretty clear that Omar and Tlaib, who I keep seeing grouped in even though she’s done nothing similar, are under an intense microscope because they’re Muslims.

I do not think this blows up like this otherwise.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,321
Is it a dog whistle if you call out spending by a specific political action committee. That doesnt seem like a dog whistle to me.
It is if it's a religious PAC.

It’s pretty clear that Omar and Tlaib, who I keep seeing grouped in even though she’s done nothing similar, are under an intense microscope because they’re Muslims.

I do not think this blows up like this otherwise.
I do think going after Tlaib is bullshit. She has done nothing wrong and is doing a great job imo. Pro-Israel people are dogwhistling her because she is for BDS. And it's bullshit.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,079
Agreed. This is hypocritical as fuck.

I didn't like her statements, and I think it was a really bad look, but I don't think a formal reprimand is in order for this when most Republicans say worse shit all the damn time and nothing is done. I do think Nancy should talk to her privately about it, but it doesn't even need to be made public imo.

If her constituents are unsatisfied, they will show it in the polls.

The pro-Maduro comments, though, deserved more than the zero attention they were given outside of polinut circles. Those alone were completely disqualifying for me and were Tootsie pro-Assad level of bullshit.
Yeah, this is pretty much exactly where I am.
It's frustrating all around.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,355
Kentucky
It’s pretty clear that Omar and Tlaib, who I keep seeing grouped in even though she’s done nothing similar, are under an intense microscope because they’re Muslims.

I do not think this blows up like this otherwise.
You’re absolutely right, but it still bears repeating that we should call out dogwhistles for what they are, even if they come from our side, even if they’re not intentional.