What will happen at the Democratic Convention?

[grunion]

I know we live in Instant World, but a whole lot of us have actually changed people's minds by standing outside of Draft Boards, Hotels, City Halls, Police Headquarters, the Capital, the Supreme Court, the White House, Stonewall, the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IN CHICAGO IN '68, etc....

I want people shouting "No More Wars". I want the Dems to question this new coziness with flag-waving in lieu of programs and ideas. I don't find this in the least bit embarrassing. I'm proud of them. Pride in country is fine. Wrapping yourself in the flag is not. We need pacifist voices. We need dissenters. The slither to the right at the DNC made me VERY uncomfortable. It's those dissidents, pacifists, anti-corporatists and anti-militarists that I'm counting on to keep that self-serving instinct from taking over the Democratic Party.

Far from embarrassing, I am proud of those idiots. ["Idiots" because, as with everyone else, anyone who disagrees with ME is an idiot. ]

QFT. It is precisely the willingness to be uncomfortable, to be a conscientious objector, to "speak truth to power" if you'll pardon the expression that made me and so many others feel the Bern. Yes, Bernie fell on his sword at the prospect of a Trump presidency, but that doesn't equate to packing up the Revolution and going home. Those angry kids WERE marginalized and bullied by what the Democratic Party has become under Debbie Wasserman Schultz . Bernie was right in calling Hillary unqualified, with her neoliberal patronage of the 1 percent and her general lack of integrity. Yeah, I will vote for her but don't tell me I have to do it quietly.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley feed off of each other. You don't follow the loonosphere, do you? Google Alex Jones Webster Tarpley. Everyone else should do so, too.

 

[Meadmaker]

I was glad to see Hillary's speech was well received, and that Donald even managed one more gaffe on the night she gave it. (I'm referring to the "I want to hit" people speech. Not very presidential, Donald.) However, the more I thought about it, the more uneasy I got.

I find myself wanting Hillary Clinton to become the next President, and I think I want Republicans to keep control of Congress. I kind of like Hillary's vision and ideals for America, but when it comes down to achieving that vision, her specific initiatives were to give away other people's money. Free college? Really? I think divided government is best. Count me in on gridlock.

But, first and foremost, don't let in Donald Trump. A childish whiner ought not be President of the United States.

 

[Stacko]

Scuttlebutt is Donald's camp hasn't even begun engaging in negotiations on venue and moderator. There's a significant chance that he doesn't agree to them at all. Everyone that isn't in the cult of personality around the great pumpkin that advises him knows how ill equipped he is to handle a one on one debate. Just look at what he did to Katy Tur when she pressed him on his insane Russia go hack Hillary comment during that press conference. There's good chance that Hillary presses him on one of goldmine of ludicrous things he said and he responds with a go **** yourself.

He's started laying the groundwork for not doing them. The dates for the debates were set over a year ago.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I make faces. It's human.

This is a skeptic forum, not a nursery school. It isn't the individual act, but rather that you haven't made a single post yet without this emotional attacking and it simply isn't an argument. You don't give arguments.

Webster Tarpley is a conspiracy-mongering idiot.

You really are a one-trick pony. I see we do have a new label besides idiot, racist, sexist, pathological liar, etc.

Conspiracy-mongering, that's a good one. I should be really ashamed of myself for reading anyone you put that label to.

That shaming isn't an argument for Hillary Clinton though, is it now? It isn't an argument for anything.

So to the topic. The only thing really that happened is the formality of locking in this tragically fatal candidate to the democratic ticket. She is going to hand Trump the presidency, as did everyone who backed her knowing what kind of corrupt politician she had become.

 

[Tony Stark]

He's started laying the groundwork for not doing them. The dates for the debates were set over a year ago.

Not to mention the fact that the debates are set up by a non profit organization controlled by both the Democrats and Republicans.

I wonder which would make him look worse. Refusing to debate like a little bitch. Or getting destroyed in them.

 

[theprestige]

I was glad to see Hillary's speech was well received, and that Donald even managed one more gaffe on the night she gave it. (I'm referring to the "I want to hit" people speech. Not very presidential, Donald.) However, the more I thought about it, the more uneasy I got.

I find myself wanting Hillary Clinton to become the next President, and I think I want Republicans to keep control of Congress. I kind of like Hillary's vision and ideals for America, but when it comes down to achieving that vision, her specific initiatives were to give away other people's money. Free college? Really? I think divided government is best. Count me in on gridlock.

But, first and foremost, don't let in Donald Trump. A childish whiner ought not be President of the United States.

A childish whiner seems like a better way to ensure gridlock than a seasoned political operative who knows how to work the system and has favors and leverage to use.

I think our institutions are much better equipped to deal with buffoonery than corruption.

 

[acbytesla]

I actually started wondering if progressives even really wanted change. I had long suspected from my college days that many in the progressive movement sabotage themselves because for them achieving change isn't the real goal it is just advocating for it that is fun. Could it be that many aren't really in it for change and are just hangers on for a movement where they get to be contrary and rebellious?

It's easy to stand outside and throw fire bombs. Actually governing and balancing principles with the in office realities is very different. It's DAMN HARD WORK where no one is satisfied.

It's easy to speak of high principles when actual results are never accomplished and responsibility is a dirty word. These liberals who have NEVER accomplished anything criticizing those who actually get things done makes me want to puke.

They are spoiled dilettantes looking down their noses at the plumber who does a dirty job. Actual governing is beneath them.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Webster Tarpley is a conspiracy-mongering idiot.

Calling Tarpley an idiot is like calling Hillary likeable. Requires a yuuge amount of ignorance and/or deceptiveness.

 

[Tony Stark]

A childish whiner seems like a better way to ensure gridlock than a seasoned political operative who knows how to work the system and has favors and leverage to use.

I think our institutions are much better equipped to deal with buffoonery than corruption.

Nonsense, if Donald wins, the Republicans will almost certainly have control of both houses of Congress. They won't do a thing to stop him as that would upset their crazy moron bigot base and he will sign whatever garbage they present him with.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not to mention the fact that the debates are set up by a non profit organization controlled by both the Democrats and Republicans.

I wonder which would make him look worse. Refusing to debate like a little bitch. Or getting destroyed in them.

Perhaps he'd participate if someone told him they were a kind of game show.

No, that wouldn't work, he'd want to be the host so he can talk the most and have all the answers written down for him by other people.

 

[Stacko]

Nonsense, if Donald wins, the Republicans will almost certainly have control of both houses of Congress. They won't do a thing to stop him as that would upset their crazy moron bigot base and he will sign whatever garbage they present him with.

The President also significant unilateral control over foreign policy and Donald would be an unmitigated disaster in handling that.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's easy to stand outside and throw fire bombs. Actually governing and balancing principles with the in office realities is very different. It's DAMN HARD WORK where no one is satisfied.

It's easy to speak of high principles when actual results are never accomplished and responsibility is a dirty word. These liberals who have NEVER accomplished anything criticizing those who actually get things done makes me want to puke.

They are spoiled dilettantes looking down their noses at the plumber who does a dirty job. Actual governing is beneath them.

On the other hand, any incompetent or corrupt officeholder can say the same thing in response to criticism. Or indeed, anybody who holds any job. You can't call my paintings bad because you aren't a painter yourself! You can't say my genocide of the natives was bad because you aren't a dictator yourself! You've never commanded an army, so who are you to judge the war ill-run? Are you a gourmet chef with a TV show? Then how can you complain of my cooking just because it tasted like vomit?

 

[Tony Stark]

The President also significant unilateral control over foreign policy and Donald would be an unmitigated disaster in handling that.

Well he would probably do an amazing job from Putin's perspective.

 

[acbytesla]

This is a skeptic forum, not a nursery school. It isn't the individual act, but rather that you haven't made a single post yet without this emotional attacking and it simply isn't an argument. You don't give arguments.

You really are a one-trick pony. I see we do have a new label besides idiot, racist, sexist, pathological liar, etc.

Conspiracy-mongering, that's a good one. I should be really ashamed of myself for reading anyone you put that label to.

That shaming isn't an argument for Hillary Clinton though, is it now? It isn't an argument for anything.

So to the topic. The only thing really that happened is the formality of locking in this tragically fatal candidate to the democratic ticket. She is going to hand Trump the presidency, as did everyone who backed her knowing what kind of corrupt politician she had become.

Wow! A thin skin and disingenuous post. Hillary showed very clearly why she is the better choice. The whining about those telling the truth about that Orange haired buffoon will take its toll. Trump is the walking dead. His political career is at its zenith. It will never look this good again.

The people may have their doubts about Hillary, but no way do they choose this clown.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The President also significant unilateral control over foreign policy and Donald would be an unmitigated disaster in handling that.

I heard that he's planning to delegate all that to the vice president.

 

[Stacko]

I heard that he's planning to delegate all that to the vice president.

Which is OK until he feels slighted by Justin Trudeau being too pretty because Melania called him cute and starts a trade war with Canada.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You don't follow the loonosphere, do you?

I do searches by topic. I just explained the very example in question.

oh boy, another label! Loonosphere. And the thing to be ashamed of is "following" whatever sources you give that label too.

I read Mein Kampf. So that makes me a Nazi, right? I read Lenin's What is to be Done. So I am a communist too.

This is some kind of proud ignorance I guess, where you are proud of yourself for never having read something by the censored author list.

Actually, no - it is important not to have a censored author list.

Your argument for Hillary Clinton is to censor information. The more opposed to Clinton, the more important the censorship. It is a good thing you will never be in charge of the Ministry of Information. All you have on a discussion forum is emotion-based attacking. Shaming/guilt-tripping, ridicule, making faces, etc.

What interests me about it is what it means culture-wide and consequently the election. It is helping Trump. The nastier you get, the longer the incessant harping on silly emotional labels, with nothing else in your tank - the better Trump looks.

 

[acbytesla]

On the other hand, any incompetent or corrupt officeholder can say the same thing in response to criticism. Or indeed, anybody who holds any job. You can't call my paintings bad because you aren't a painter yourself! You can't say my genocide of the natives was bad because you aren't a dictator yourself! You've never commanded an army, so who are you to judge the war ill-run? Are you a gourmet chef with a TV show? Then how can you complain of my cooking just because it tasted like vomit?

One hell of a straw man. About the worst thing I've heard from Bernie's Bros is that Hillary accepted payment for speeches from some major banks after she became a private citizen. That she accepts campaign donations from the wealthy. It's all implied corruption.

I'm not naive about these things. They paid large sums for access... not legislation. And as unseemly as that may seem, that is the way the game is played. But that doesn't stop Hillary for pushing for higher wages for the poor or debt free college or health insurance for children.

Will a Republican do that?

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is a skeptic forum, not a nursery school. It isn't the individual act, but rather that you haven't made a single post yet without this emotional attacking and it simply isn't an argument. You don't give arguments.




You really are a one-trick pony. I see we do have a new label besides idiot, racist, sexist, pathological liar, etc.

Conspiracy-mongering, that's a good one. I should be really ashamed of myself for reading anyone you put that label to.

That shaming isn't an argument for Hillary Clinton though, is it now? It isn't an argument for anything.

So to the topic. The only thing really that happened is the formality of locking in this tragically fatal candidate to the democratic ticket. She is going to hand Trump the presidency, as did everyone who backed her knowing what kind of corrupt politician she had become.

This is not an argument for or against Hillary Clinton. This is a poster surprised that you'd be flogging Webster Tarpley, chief polemicist and writer for Lyndon Larouche for decades, as anything other than a professional conspiracy hack. Of course he and Alex Jones have some sort of mutual respect... they are milking the same cow. Professional conspiracy mongers.

I assume everyone actually understands the abbreviated labels, and as this isn't a thread on Webster Tarpley, I simply used the shorthand. Anyone who wishes to learn about him can look into his work as this is not the sub-forum in which he is going to be readily recognized; that would be the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum where his topics are discussed.