President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I know Bernie fans who are totally rabid. So they exist. I also wonder how many online are bots or just GOP plants to stir shit up.

Bernie is the only one still out there who I think has no chance to win.

 

By the way, the article you posted said four lawmakers have topped $1 million in donations from Pharma. Two from each party. Quite interesting reading.

 

We bombed Syria ONE WEEK after the Douma attack without a shred of evidence as to who did it.

And I do not consider MIT chemical weapons expert Theodore Postol and dissenting members of the OPCW (which investigated the area) to be minor discrepancies.

The OPCW members are basically whistleblowers who said "Something stinks here." We like whistleblowers, don't we?

Scientific evidence > Emotional knee-jerk reflex analysis.

 

You're an elite?

 

Isn’t everyone who lives in a libruhl state on the two coasts an elite? It’s all we’ve heard from the Republicans for the last 50 years or so.

 

The thing about Sanders - and I'm still not sold on him - is that he's the one Democratic candidate who I can intuitively grasp why he's running, To tear down corporate power. You can be reasonably wary of that but his campaign has a reason to be.

Everybody else seems to suffer the Clinton syndrome. They want the gig but can't really explain why, (Hating Trump is sort of pro forma in this situation.) Maybe Elizabeth Warren comes closest. It sure would be interesting to see her Consumer Reports version of America.

 

Except the scientific evidence that Postol relied on for his dissenting paper is in doubt, "It argued that the crater simulated in the team’s models does not match the one in Khan Shaykhun and does not look like real-world craters formed by 122-mm artillery rockets. Jean Pascal Zanders, an independent researcher and consultant on chemical weapons in Ferney-Voltaire, France, says the manuscript ignores other evidence, such as chemical clues indicating the sarin released in Khan Shaykhun was produced from Syrian government stocks of a precursor."

Not to mention that there are multiple other incidents besides the one in Douma.

But let's set aside Syria for a moment, because I'll never get you to believe that a Russian ally is guilty of murdering its own people.

Why would Democrats support someone who:
- Refuses to take torture off the table when interrogating suspects
- Refused to take a position on the Trump impeachment vote, instead voting "present"
- Is borderline anti-Islamic, including decision to join the GOP in the ridiculous insistence that Obama use the term "radical Islam" to describe terrorists and her ties to anti-Muslim Hindu Nationalists
- And generally comes across as combative rather than as someone with different opinions who might be able to forge some sort of cooperative compromise or agreement

 

Trump's
Useless
Liar
Stands
Isolated

 

Go to the source.

Islam/Fighting Islamophobia

 

I've come to the realization that its not about picking the Democratic nominee who best suits what I want, its only about picking the candidate who is most likely to beat Trump, that guy is Bloomberg. Its got to be white guy v. white guy, then the swing voters in the middle will have a choice who will bring back respect to the office and who isn't a (perceived) extremist, female (Amy/Warren)/gay (Pete)/socialist (Bernie). Maybe Biden fits the bill but I think Bloomberg has more energy and is more likely to go toe to toe with Trump on everything, adds, speeches, etc.

 

If she were a true friend of Islam, she'd recognize that using the phrase "radical Islam" is divisive and confrontational. Much like Christianity, Islam has multiple diverse ideologies and emphasizing the Islamic part of their corrupted beliefs damages relationships around the world.

But she doesn't care about that. Also, her actions - including her continued support of anti-Islamic Indian government officials - speak far louder than her words on a campaign page no one reads.