The KK show – DNC Screws Tulsi Out Of Next Dem Debate

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | The KK show – DNC Screws Tulsi Out Of Next Dem Debate

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #132869
      Bernie 4 2020
      Participant

      I'm done, It's over for now. It was nice meeting all the cool people here.

    • #133000
      Jan Boehmerman
      Moderator

      I fear that the DNC will screw Bernie later too….. AGAIN!  

      • #133030
        Babel 17
        Participant

        I’m growing suspicious of the supposed understanding that Warren and Sanders have with each other.

        The nightmare scenario being that while Sanders and Warren would, combined, have more delegates than Biden, without the superdelegates they wouldn’t have a majority. After a nice chat Warren then might decide that she likes whoever the DNC likes, even though she had less delegates than Sanders and thus expected to stay loyal to the understanding, and fight things out on the convention floor.

        We might see a Frankenstein ticket, with Biden bowing out and throwing his delegates to a DNC pick. That Sanders was the second choice for the supporters of both Biden and Warren would count for little to the establishment. They’re a club of mad scientists who can do what they want, and they might stitch together a ticket of an also-ran and a never-ran. God would have to help the sexist and racist pig who’d dare question that.

        If it were just Biden, Warren, and Sanders, in the race then there’d already be a conversation about this, and Warren would have to come clean about which “tribe” she belonged to. That of the establishment, or that of the progressives.

        She needs to get faced with that question now, and not given room to be coy. She’s used up her benefit of the doubt due to her statements regarding fundraising, and her failure to endorse Sanders in 2016 after he picked up the standard of the progressive movement once Warren made it clear that she wasn’t daring to challenge Clinton.

        • #133627
          davidpdx
          Participant

          @babel17 one of the things that you and others on JPR argue is that Warren had an obligation to endorse Sanders. The thing is she didn’t. By the way I supported Sanders in 2016 (and I support him this time around as well). However, I think it is unfair to insist that because she didn’t endorse Sanders she is untrustworthy (some others have said she is a DNC plant and other tinfoil stuff).

           

          American living abroad in South Korea and a proud progressive.

          • #133758
            game meat
            Participant

            @davidpdx

            Your jab at JPR’s membership aside, I don’t think anyone has argued she was obligated to endorse Sanders in 2016. What people have argued is that a politician’s endorsement, or lack thereof, is an indication of what they stand for. It is a statement. No one is obligated to overlook it because you think it is unimportant.

            Warren’s policy positions align much closer to Sanders than Clinton. As a result, many assumed she would eventually endorse Sanders.  By not endorsing Sanders, she made a statement. Of course voters will consider a pol’s endorsement when evaluating their overall credibility. It’s perfectly normal to judge others based on their behavior. That is not “unfair.”

             

          • #134060
            Babel 17
            Participant

            I was referring to what gets talked of as the current understanding between them. I was speaking of the present, not the past.

            Edit: I did mention the past, but I didn’t say she had an obligation or understanding to endorse Sanders. I called what she didn’t do a failure. And that’s what it was, imo. It was a failure to step up when her supporters were counting on her, as they had already stepped up and were working hard to get Bernie nominated.

        • #133690
          djean111
          Participant

          @babel17

          I agree.  Looking more and more to me like Warren will be used as a spoiler for the DNC.

          • #134066
            Babel 17
            Participant

            I think this might have something to do with Bernie taking so much time to delineate exactly how progressive he is. I think he might be moving on from being OK with the voters seeing no distinction between his positions and those who claim to be down with his ideas.

            People on stage who claim to be progressive are now going to have to put up or shut up, Kamala Harris in particular, especially with Medicare for all. Warren will be compelled to lay her cards out and get down to specifics. How is she different than Sanders? If she refuses to compare plans, then that will be very revealing.

            I only wish we could have a decent amount of talk of the failed efforts to save countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, by destroying them first.

            It used to be OK to bring up Iraq but then we had Clinton, who went along with family friend Bush a little too much for it to be comfortable to talk about. And the New York Times and the Washington Post were ever so grateful that the Democratic party agreed to make the illegal Iraq invasion a non-issue.

            But I think it essential for everyone on stage to have, and voice, an opinion on Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and I’m not saying that just because only Gabbard and Sanders would really benefit from that, and it would hurt the chances of Obama’s BFF Joe Biden. Everyone who chose to stay mum as that crap went down would be uncomfortable.

            And so we’ve seen the preemptive measure of the media talking up the point that somehow  much of Syria needed to be destroyed, while millions were killed, had their homes and towns destroyed, and infiltrated with “good terrorists” that we helped arm by giving them the armories of Libya, because Syria was ruled by a dictator.

            It’s like nothing was learned from Iraq, and the media endlessly covers their asses when the destruction caused is in a war they backed, and run by an administration that they favored.

            Not having Tulsi on stage isn’t just bad, it could be disastrous for the lives of millions of people in the Middle East. But hey, let’s not have Democrats on stage criticizing other Democrats! Millions dead is a small price to pay if it means we can unite against Trump. Hell, let’s crash the economy if that’s what it takes.

            I just don’t see Bernie as having the time on stage to bring up those disastrous wars while making it clear why he is the real deal, and with real specific plans for the nation. I think it no accident that the DNC polled so oddly after the second debate, the one Gabbard was in. That they get away with it is because so many are complicit in the failed and disastrous wars that she so eloquently speaks of. The DNC and the MSM have no fracks to give about the lives lost, and they want Gabbard kept away from the stage, and an anti-war progressive like Sanders kept away from the White House.

            Grifting has been hard for DNC loyalists/DC insiders after their monumental, and insanely expensive, loss to Trump, and they can’t abide the thought of Sanders being in place and not abetting their schemes and larcenies.

    • #133080
      Babel 17
      Participant
    • #134231
      Junker
      Participant

      Tulsi brings too much truth to the debates for the DNC.

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.