2020 Democratic Primary

[Ishina]

Sure, Biden is pro-life, dragged USA into a war with Iraq, has a lifelong ambition to gut social security, and can't keep his hands to himself, but Sanders shouts sometimes. So it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

[Pamela]

Sure, Biden is pro-life, dragged USA into a war with Iraq, has a lifelong ambition to gut social security, and can't keep his hands to himself, but Sanders shouts sometimes. So it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Now it’s not just Joe but his team of rivals.

Also I can tell how young someone is by how aware they are that over a lifetime people evolve.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Now it’s not just Joe but his team of rivals.

Also I can tell how young someone is by how aware they are that over a lifetime people evolve.

Yes, people evolve - but the fact he has just recently said he's considering a republican as his running mate says loads.

It could say 'I still hold the beliefs I had when I was younger' or it could say that the DNC still thinks that independents like me are all somewhere -between- the GOP and the Dems....

Either way, its not a good optic from where I'm sitting. Because a centrist will still have the dem party heading further right, instead of pulling back towards the left of FDR and the New Deal.

 

[Ishina]

Now it’s not just Joe but his team of rivals.

Also I can tell how young someone is by how aware they are that over a lifetime people evolve.

I can tell how naive someone is by how quickly and easily they put stock in what a candidate says to a crowd, instead of what a candidate has actually done before they stepped on stage.

 

[Anya Ristow]

This guy used to be an HRC advisor, and his tweets were positively antagonistic toward Sanders supporters.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Now it’s not just Joe but his team of rivals.

Also I can tell how young someone is by how aware they are that over a lifetime people evolve.

Does that include Tulsi with her earlier reprehensible views of gay people?

 

[Cristalle]

Does that include Tulsi with her earlier reprehensible views of gay people?

They don't like her, so she doesn't count. Misogyny, double standards... not a problem because she doesn't count.

 

[Pamela]

Does that include Tulsi with her earlier reprehensible views of gay people?

I don’t know if Tulsi is aware that people evolve.
Not evolving is what happens when someone learns nothing after they turn 30, presumably because they are quite sure they already are right about everything.

 

[Ishina]

Yeah, Biden was just a young kid of 60 years old when he sent America to invade Iraq. Let's give him chance to grow and mature.

 

[Essence Lumin]

I don’t know if Tulsi is aware that people evolve.
Not evolving is what happens when someone learns nothing after they turn 30, presumably because they are quite sure they already are right about everything.

The point I was trying to make is she made some awful statements in the early 2000s about gay people and gay marriage. She says she has changed and was mistaken. Does that fit your description? Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy

 

[Pamela]

Yeah, Biden was just a young kid of 60 years old when he sent America to invade Iraq. Let's give him chance to grow and mature.

So you are under the impression that people cease to learn/ evolve after what age? 60? 50? Because Bernie has had some problem behaviors.

I also assume your own behavior and thinking is the same now as when you were what? 12?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yeah, Biden was just a young kid of 60 years old when he sent America to invade Iraq. Let's give him chance to grow and mature.

I thought it was George and George W Bush who invaded Iraq (separate invasions, of course). Did something happen while Biden was Obama's VP that I missed?

 

[Cristalle]

Taken by the headline (though I still think the North Koreans' "dotard" is a better insult), I took a look at the article and discovered that I apparently shouldn't trust a word The Daily Beast says because its "corporate owner IAC has Chelsea Clinton on its board of directors" and that it published "an article titled “Kremlin Media Still Like Bernie, ’Cause They Love Trump” which aggressively smears Sanders as a tool of the Kremlin".

I'm not sure it says he's "a tool of the Kremlin" anywhere; rather, it says that commentators on Russia Today and Russian domestic TV channels (nominally independent but state-controlled in effect) keep promoting him as the most likely Democratic candidate -- I don't watch Russian domestic TV but I assume the Beast isn't making that up -- and that

Furthermore, as it also notes,
(the actual quote is at para 43a, p 17, of the indictment).

While the Russians may well discover that they have completely misunderstood Sanders and that, in office, President Sanders proves their implacable opponent, all The Daily Beast is doing, it seems to me, is reporting on what Russian politicians and political commentators are doing now and on what they did 4 years ago.

Is there any reason to suppose Putin's preferences about US presidential candidates have changed since 2016 and he no longer wants to see a contest between Trump and Sanders, from which he hopes Trump will emerge the winner? Or should we, as Trump and the Republicans would like us to, dismiss Mueller's report as biased and unreliable?

Normally I wouldn't waste my time reading so obviously a partisan article, let alone checking its sources, but I thought we try here to quote from reliable news media when we can, and this piece seems to provide a good example why that's a good idea.

I'm not expressing any view on Bernie Sanders here, but I would suggest that his supporters are doing neither him nor themselves any favours when they quote such utter tripe in his support.

I agree "dotard" is a better insult but let's let Trump keep that one.

As for the partisan nature... really? So much of what is posted here goes beyond fact and into the realm of people's opinions. This is what you took away from this article? The basis of this article is telling you that an independent journalist published in January what the plan was for consolidation of candidates, and that there was a plot to smear Sanders as a Russian asset. Sure enough, we got the intelligence leak sopped up and broadcast by willing media.

The saying that one shouldn't believe everything they read holds true regardless of the source. People with financial interests do influence things, it's human nature, so yes we should consider that her presence influences what media is produced. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" is the modus operandi.

The very fact that intelligence sources leaked the story to the press on the cusp of the Nevada caucuses is very likely not coincidental. I don't put much stock in the efficacy of Russian trolling but such a story is clearly designed to trigger those who do. I very much see it as a weaponization of red-baiting against Bernie. The story had to be walked back because of lack of evidence. When talking about reliable news sources, we also have to consider that these leaks are likewise not reliable. The "reliable" New York Times cheerled us into war. Biden himself advocated and defended that war. Not all propaganda is Russian. We get plenty of it, home grown. That said, it's nothing to get scared of if Russian media describes Sanders as a front-runner in the race. It seems that Russian media covering the news is a scandalous thing, being blown out of proportion.

 

[Eunoli]

I agree "dotard" is a better insult but let's let Trump keep that one.

As for the partisan nature... really? So much of what is posted here goes beyond fact and into the realm of people's opinions. This is what you took away from this article? The basis of this article is telling you that an independent journalist published in January what the plan was for consolidation of candidates, and that there was a plot to smear Sanders as a Russian asset. Sure enough, we got the intelligence leak sopped up and broadcast by willing media.

This was never represented as a plot to smear him as a Russian asset by the media that I saw. Every outlet that I saw reported on it also reported that he rejected and denounced any attempt by the Russians to assist his campaign. I never heard a single reporter say there was any suspicion he was colluding with them.

 

[Cristalle]

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

I thought it was George and George W Bush who invaded Iraq (separate invasions, of course). Did something happen while Biden was Obama's VP that I missed?

I believe it is a reference to the fact that, as a Senator, Biden voted in support of it. [I'd have to confirm this is how he voted...]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I agree "dotard" is a better insult but let's let Trump keep that one.

As for the partisan nature... really? So much of what is posted here goes beyond fact and into the realm of people's opinions. This is what you took away from this article? The basis of this article is telling you that an independent journalist published in January what the plan was for consolidation of candidates, and that there was a plot to smear Sanders as a Russian asset. Sure enough, we got the intelligence leak sopped up and broadcast by willing media.

The saying that one shouldn't believe everything they read holds true regardless of the source. People with financial interests do influence things, it's human nature, so yes we should consider that her presence influences what media is produced. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" is the modus operandi.

The very fact that intelligence sources leaked the story to the press on the cusp of the Nevada caucuses is very likely not coincidental. I don't put much stock in the efficacy of Russian trolling but such a story is clearly designed to trigger those who do. I very much see it as a weaponization of red-baiting against Bernie. The story had to be walked back because of lack of evidence. When talking about reliable news sources, we also have to consider that these leaks are likewise not reliable. The "reliable" New York Times cheerled us into war. Biden himself advocated and defended that war. Not all propaganda is Russian. We get plenty of it, home grown. That said, it's nothing to get scared of if Russian media describes Sanders as a front-runner in the race. It seems that Russian media covering the news is a scandalous thing, being blown out of proportion.

Sorry, I got as far as reading her comments on the Daily Beast article and then reading the article and concluded that, since she couldn't even accurately summarise a simple article when she had it in front of her, she was a waste of time.

 

[Eunoli]

I believe it is a reference to the fact that, as a Senator, Biden voted in support of it. [I'd have to confirm this is how he voted...]

He did, along with around 60% of the other Dem senators at the time. They were lied to and they believed what they were told. I'm not as concerned with how people voted on this as I am on if they renounced it when the truth came out. People can be wrong when given the wrong information and this wasn't an issue of bigotry or hate like so many others.

 

[Ishina]

So you are under the impression that people cease to learn/ evolve after what age? 60? 50? Because Bernie has had some problem behaviors.

I also assume your own behavior and thinking is the same now as when you were what? 12?

I'm all about rehabilitation, evolution and giving people a second chance. I believe absolutely that human beings are fluid and often fickle creatures. But people have to actually show me they have changed for me to believe they have changed, not just make the right noises out of their face flap when they are trying to get elected. Sometimes people don't mean what they say. There is no contradiction between believing wholeheartedly that people can change, and not automatically believing every public apology I hear.

Your attempt to paint reasonable doubt as short-sighted immaturity is silly.

 

[Ishina]

I thought it was George and George W Bush who invaded Iraq (separate invasions, of course). Did something happen while Biden was Obama's VP that I missed?

Dems were a majority in the Senate when they sent America to war. Biden was chair of the Senate committee on foreign relations and one the most vocal proponets of the war, and had a lot of sway. He hand-picked the 18 witnesses in the Senate hearing on Iraq, and picked pro-war supporters. He has as much blood on his hands as Bush does, if not more.