• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

BeLeafer said:
An interesting read.
Click to expand...

main-qimg-cd184d9cfd68a59c90e66840a29e1b8c-c


"Lee Atwater"
 
Atwater:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”
Click to expand...
 
If you flipped the script on this, a whole bunch of unnamed sources saying things we already knew, you would be beside yourself about how ridiculous this article is.

The entire purpose of warrants of any type are to verify "unverified" intelligence, whether it was gained by a paid operative, paid informant, or any other method of intelligence (aka "evidence") gathering. You don't "verify" the factual nature of gathered intelligence, and then take that to get a warrant. You go get a warrant to verify evidence that appears credible enough to investigate.

There is literally nothing new in this article that we didn't know already other than Republicans amending a list of documents they want Trump to declassify (get on it Donald), and an unnamed source claiming that the FBI knew some shit that we already knew that they knew. Of course there is going to be some people questioning the dossier, that's their ****ing job. It should make everyone interested super warm and fuzzy inside that there were FBI investigators that were questioning the veracity of a dossier that was never intended to be more than the professional intelligence scrapings of a well connected pro with a ton of experience in Russia. Again, that's their ****ing job. To confirm whether or not the evidence provided is accurate. Given the incredible severity of the allegations, you absolutely have to chase this down to see what's there. We're literally talking about the possibility of the greatest crime in US history being committed.
 
MindzEye said:
If you flipped the script on this, a whole bunch of unnamed sources saying things we already knew, you would be beside yourself about how ridiculous this article is.

The entire purpose of warrants of any type are to verify "unverified" intelligence, whether it was gained by a paid operative, paid informant, or any other method of intelligence (aka "evidence") gathering. You don't "verify" the factual nature of gathered intelligence, and then take that to get a warrant. You go get a warrant to verify evidence that appears credible enough to investigate.

There is literally nothing new in this article that we didn't know already other than Republicans amending a list of documents they want Trump to declassify (get on it Donald), and an unnamed source claiming that the FBI knew some shit that we already knew that they knew. Of course there is going to be some people questioning the dossier, that's their ****ing job. It should make everyone interested super warm and fuzzy inside that there were FBI investigators that were questioning the veracity of a dossier that was never intended to be more than the professional intelligence scrapings of a well connected pro with a ton of experience in Russia. Again, that's their ****ing job. To confirm whether or not the evidence provided is accurate. Given the incredible severity of the allegations, you absolutely have to chase this down to see what's there. We're literally talking about the possibility of the greatest crime in US history being committed.
Click to expand...

Wow are you ever going to be disappointed in the outcome.
 
BeLeafer said:
Don't say you weren't warned, progressives:



A slippery fella ... yep, appropriately they call him the white Obama. Not someone who will go to bat for the American people (unless they're the techno-affluent types the DNC loves).
Click to expand...

Democrats, one and all, radical and centrist, need to come to Jeebus on universal health care. No daylight or equivocation.

It’s the winning issue and it’s good policy, a happy mix. Moreover, I don’t think anything else major gets meaningfully done until it’s resolved.
 
lecoqsportif said:
Democrats, one and all, radical and centrist, need to come to Jeebus on universal health care. No daylight or equivocation.

It’s the winning issue and it’s good policy, a happy mix. Moreover, I don’t think anything else major gets meaningfully done until it’s resolved.
Click to expand...

While a hugely popular policy, it won't happen until they run on an even more popular policy -- shunning big corporate and other lobby money in campaigns.
 
lecoqsportif said:
Not even close.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

Attacking Monopoly Power Can Be Stunningly Good Politics, Survey Finds
David Dayen

November 28 2018, 11:21 a.m.

...

According to the survey, conducted in September by Public Policy Polling, 76 percent of respondents were either somewhat or very concerned that “big corporations have too much power over your family and your community.” The figure grew when asked whether big corporations have too much power over politicians: a stunning 88 percent were at least somewhat concerned, with 71 percent very concerned.

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/28/monopoly-power-corporate-concentration/
Click to expand...

Russia conspiracy theorists haven't spent much time understanding why the DNC had to steal the nomination from Sanders nor anything real about why Trump won. They both hammered on this issue to huge popular support -- and support from elements of the population that both parties had abandoned.
 
Thanks to the DNC most people are oblivious to this danger.

New Cold War Dangers
The Russian-Ukrainian military conflict in the Kerch Strait illustrates again how this Cold War is more dangerous that was its predecessor.

By Stephen F. Cohen

Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of politics and Russian studies at Princeton and NYU, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at TheNation.com.)

A major theme of Cohen’s recently published book, War With Russia? From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate, is that the new Cold War is more dangerous in several ways than was its 40-year predecessor, which the world survived. Two of these new perils were demonstrated on November 25 when Russia forces fired on and seized small Ukrainian military vessels in disputed territorial waters near the recently built Kerch Bridge connecting mainland Russia with annexed Crimea.

The episode involved two unprecedented factors in Cold War history. Unlike the preceding Cold War, whose political epicenter was in faraway Germany, this one has unfolded directly on Russia’s borders, most existentially in Ukraine. Indeed, the Kiev government is in effect a US-NATO client regime. Thus, a “border incident,” as Russian President Putin called the Kerch episode, could trigger a general war between Russia and the West.

Second, during the 40-year Cold War, US presidents were expected and able to negotiate with their Kremlin counterparts in order to defuse such crises, as JFK famously did during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. But because of Russiagate allegations that Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin to attain the presidency in 2016, despite as yet the lack of any evidence, President Trump was unable or unwilling to do so. Instead, as a result of the Kerch episode, he canceled a scheduled meeting with Putin. That is, a crisis that made such a meeting imperative was instead, due to the state of American politics, the cause of its cancellation. The larger result was the further militarization of the new Cold War at the expense of diplomacy, a theme discussed at some length here.

...
https://www.thenation.com/article/new-cold-war-dangers/
Click to expand...
 
lecoqsportif said:
Democrats, one and all, radical and centrist, need to come to Jeebus on universal health care. No daylight or equivocation.

It’s the winning issue and it’s good policy, a happy mix. Moreover, I don’t think anything else major gets meaningfully done until it’s resolved.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Despite Beleafer's assertions to the contrary, they don't have to go super far left on every single issue. There must be room for centrists on both sides. The fact that they have all but disappeared from the Republican Party is beside the point.

But this issue is an obvious no-brainer. Find a brilliant marketing firm to figure out how to deliver the message properly (FOR ONCE) to the various groups that need to hear it. But the majority already support it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top