Herochat

Julian Assange(& new Ralph Nadar thoughts) : Why the Dem Party is doomed

AP

  • ********
  • 14942
  • +52/-48
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2017, 09:46:40 PM »
The most they have to go on now is that Trump's campaign might've been financed by a foreign power (fucked up, but then the Dems are also guilty of that) and that Trump might have stocks with Kremlin-sponsored companies that he didn't talk about (which John Podesta is also guilty of).  Those are major offenses, but they can't go after him very well without drawing attention to their own shit.  This is mostly deflection.

therock

  • ********
  • 7903
  • +23/-63
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2017, 11:11:39 PM »
it just a goal post been move. First it was Russia didnt hack the DNC. Then they moved
Well no voting machine were messed with.  Turns out that might of been mess with..so they move on passed that
Then it was it was no collusion..turns out it might of been

And whose fault is that?

who fault about what?

Whose fault is it that they keep changing what the Russians were guilty of?  You just admitted that they started off saying the Russians hacked the DNC emails, then suddenly it was switched to hacking the machines, then maybe collusion.  They have to keep changing the story because all of those things ended up being false or they had no evidence for it.

They didnt change it. the people against this story keeps moving goal post..everytime the evidence increase

First it was russian never hacked.  Lot of evidence say they did
Well if it did..that all they did. Then there evidence that they did more like put out fake news and hack the election
Then it say nobody in the admistration was involve..now it evidence That people in the admistration did it
Then people say TRUMP himself wasnt part of
Its hints he might be

Now they putting IF their was conlusion it wasnt illegal

All that part of the same story
They hack the emails
They also had people putting out fake stories and paid trolls
They also tried to hack voting machines and registration machine. The reigstration mahines thing not new by the way, that was there from the start..just never got in the news

Question is WHY did they do it. Even if you think they didnt do it..there enough smoke out there where they SHOULD have an investigation that serious. And it is important new

The president did obstruction of justice. Openly admited so. That an impeachble offense. it be weird if the dems DIDNT talk about a lot.


The most they have to go on now is that Trump's campaign might've been financed by a foreign power (fucked up, but then the Dems are also guilty of that) and that Trump might have stocks with Kremlin-sponsored companies that he didn't talk about (which John Podesta is also guilty of).  Those are major offenses, but they can't go after him very well without drawing attention to their own shit.  This is mostly deflection.

Yes if that draw attention to thier own shit..then they should be investigsated.

Let say the dems suck. Let say the dems are such horribel..corpare whore

The Quesiton we much ask ourselve if that ALONE..enough to ignore Trump admistration pontential crimes..and just not investigate it

it The dems sucking reason enough for the media not to report on Trump basicly admisting to obstruction of Justice

it not deflection if its TRUE
If a gultiy man points out a crime..doesnt mean the crime didnt happen

Whenever you decided if something bias..you got to see how things would be reported it things simpyl were reverse. You know if I like me some Obama. If Obama fired Comey, threaten him, then admited the reason he fired him was because of a Hillary investigation,

if my reaction

"come on why we  the republican did it news. We shouldnt be talking about this"

would the board reaction be close to this



Well Gee rock you make some good points that worth considering




or


this




The second reaction would be rather reasonble




AP

  • ********
  • 14942
  • +52/-48
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2017, 11:50:40 PM »
They didnt change it. the people against this story keeps moving goal post..everytime the evidence increase

If you're accused of something, you can't "move the goal posts".  The only people who can move the goal posts are the people making the accusations.  If the evidence "keeps mounting", then why do they keep backtracking and admitting they're wrong.  That's why it keeps changing.  They keep being proven wrong.  This is why the number of organizations involved in the investigation have gone from 17 to 3.  They backtracked.  How are you not getting this?

The most they have to go on now is that Trump's campaign might've been financed by a foreign power (fucked up, but then the Dems are also guilty of that) and that Trump might have stocks with Kremlin-sponsored companies that he didn't talk about (which John Podesta is also guilty of).  Those are major offenses, but they can't go after him very well without drawing attention to their own shit.  This is mostly deflection.

Yes if that draw attention to thier own shit..then they should be investigsated.[/quote]

They should but they won't because the Dems have shit to hide.  Instead, they try to have their cake and eat it too by claiming the Russians are building super lasers on the moon and shit.  This is the Dems' version of Benghazi at this point.

therock

  • ********
  • 7903
  • +23/-63
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2017, 12:28:11 AM »
They didnt change it. the people against this story keeps moving goal post..everytime the evidence increase

If you're accused of something, you can't "move the goal posts".  The only people who can move the goal posts are the people making the accusations.  If the evidence "keeps mounting", then why do they keep backtracking and admitting they're wrong.  That's why it keeps changing.  They keep being proven wrong.  This is why the number of organizations involved in the investigation have gone from 17 to 3.  They backtracked.  How are you not getting this?

The most they have to go on now is that Trump's campaign might've been financed by a foreign power (fucked up, but then the Dems are also guilty of that) and that Trump might have stocks with Kremlin-sponsored companies that he didn't talk about (which John Podesta is also guilty of).  Those are major offenses, but they can't go after him very well without drawing attention to their own shit.  This is mostly deflection.

Yes if that draw attention to thier own shit..then they should be investigsated.

They should but they won't because the Dems have shit to hide.  Instead, they try to have their cake and eat it too by claiming the Russians are building super lasers on the moon and shit.  This is the Dems' version of Benghazi at this point.
[/quote]

keep back tracking. They backed tracked on one thing. Everything else has some pretty hard evidence. Again even trump himself admit they hacked the DNC.

The detractors of this story was the one moving the goal post. At first they were like russian hacking the Dnc a total lie. Then evidence mounted they moved to it no collusion..then they moved to well there might be collusion..to well trump wasnt involve

it not Dems version of bengazi because bengazi at least was investigated, a tons of hearings, hillary herself had to go on stage, and cost millions

Yea dems got shit to hide. But that not reason enough to drop Russian investigation when it has glaring stuff. Just like it Dems were caught with something..you shouldnt drop the investigation just because Republicans have something to hide. Saying  "Jimmy chewed gum to"  doesnt work in a kindergarten class, and it shouldnt work in a court room. if Jimmy get caught chewing gum his ass in punish. Dems already found stuff without having that many. Session was caught commiting perjury. Flynn was caught not disclosing he was a spy and conflict of interest. kunish apparently tried to get a secret channel with the Russians. All again by itself are huge deals.

it not like if the dems did this..we WOULDNT have an investigation. Hell back when they thought Hillary would win they were already planning to investigate her and impeach her. Hell Trump did obstruction of justice. We know that may be an impeacble offense. in comparrsion dems being pretty chill about this.

If the dems didnt push that it be weird. Everyone should care about that

AP

  • ********
  • 14942
  • +52/-48
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2017, 12:39:27 AM »
keep back tracking. They backed tracked on one thing. Everything else has some pretty hard evidence. Again even trump himself admit they hacked the DNC

When did Trump say they hacked the DNC?  AFAIK, he said it was a possibility.

Quote
The detractors of this story was the one moving the goal post

No, they are not.  The Dems and the media keep making different accusations.  The detractor only point out when they don't have the evidence, which is when the Dems come up with a new theory.  If I said "Rock fucked a donkey" and you denied it, so then I said, "Okay, he just jerked off a donkey" and you denied that one and then I came up with "Rock made out with a donkey and there may or may not have been heavy petting involved".  Is that you moving the goal post or is it just me making shit up?

therock

  • ********
  • 7903
  • +23/-63
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2017, 08:41:40 AM »
keep back tracking. They backed tracked on one thing. Everything else has some pretty hard evidence. Again even trump himself admit they hacked the DNC

When did Trump say they hacked the DNC?  AFAIK, he said it was a possibility.

Quote
The detractors of this story was the one moving the goal post

No, they are not.  The Dems and the media keep making different accusations.  The detractor only point out when they don't have the evidence, which is when the Dems come up with a new theory.  If I said "Rock fucked a donkey" and you denied it, so then I said, "Okay, he just jerked off a donkey" and you denied that one and then I came up with "Rock made out with a donkey and there may or may not have been heavy petting involved".  Is that you moving the goal post or is it just me making shit up?

he admited it twice actullly

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-election-hacking-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-628835

First early on. Then he back tracked. Now he admits it but blames it on Obama


So in order for your scenario to fit, I would have to admit to fucking that donkey

and later go "Yea I fucked that Donkey...but AP did. A lot of people fucked that Donkely


your fucking gay if you dont fuck that donkey

Then I got to have my spokesperson admiting i fucked said Donkey, and my friend involved in Donkey Fucking related activites

When I say move the goal post orignal a lot of people were on the "NO WAY RUSSIA hack it...fake news" but a lot of people has sense walked off that train
Then it was well that all they did...and that train getting smaller as well

And even if Trump just said probally...then shouldnt we PROBALLY should have an invesitgation. Insnt it probally news worth reporting on


Just like if I said I probally fucked a Doneky..then maybe I shouldnt be run a petting Zoo. You be well with in your right to investigate my deeply deprave Donkey fucking activies.

AP

  • ********
  • 14942
  • +52/-48
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2017, 08:20:56 PM »
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

Ralph Nader really lays it out as to where and how the Dems started losing, going all the way back to the 70's.

Panthergod

  • *******
  • 6714
  • +35/-73
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2017, 08:27:17 PM »
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

Ralph Nader really lays it out as to where and how the Dems started losing, going all the way back to the 70's.
Of course they'll deflect by citing the 2000 election.

Imperial

  • Was once the Greatest of All Time
  • ******
  • 2310
  • +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2017, 08:21:40 PM »
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

Ralph Nader really lays it out as to where and how the Dems started losing, going all the way back to the 70's.

I was wondering how many others saw this as well. Nadar is fucking spot on.

Quote
RALPH NADER: Do you want me to go through the history of the decline and decadence of the Democratic Party? I’m going to give you millstones around the Democratic Party neck that are milestones.

The first big one was in 1979. Tony Coelho, who was a congressman from California, and who ran the House Democratic Campaign treasure chest, convinced the Democrats that they should bid for corporate money, corporate PACs, that they could raise a lot of money. Why leave it up to Republicans and simply rely on the dwindling labor union base for money, when you had a huge honeypot in the corporate area?

And they did. And I could see the difference almost immediately. First of all, they lost the election to Reagan. And then they started getting weaker in the Congress. At that time, 1980, some of our big allies were defeated in the so-called Reagan landslide against Carter, we lost Senator [Gaylord] Nelson, Senator [Warren] Magnuson, Senator [Frank] Church. We had more trouble getting congressional hearings investigating corporate malfeasance by the Democrat [congressional committee] chairs. When the Democrats regained the White House [in 1992] you could see the difference in appointments to regulatory agencies, the difficulty in getting them to upgrade health and safety regulations.

The second millstone is that they didn’t know how to deal with Reagan. And the Republicans took note. That means a soft tone, smiling … You can say terrible things and do terrible things as long as you have [that] type of presentation.


[Democrats] were still thinking Republican conservatives were dull, stupid, and humorless. They didn’t adjust.

RN: Increasingly they began to judge their challenge to Republicans by how much money they raised. You talk to [Marcy] Kaptur from Cleveland, she says, we go into the Democratic caucus in the House, we go in talking money, we stay talking money, and we go out with our quotas for money. …

As a result they took the economic issues off the table that used to win again and again in the thirties and forties for the Democrats. The labor issues, the living wage issues, the health insurance issue, pension issues. And that of course was a huge bonanza for the Republican Party because the Republican Party could not contend on economic issues. They contended on racial issues, on bigotry issues, and that’s how they began to take control of the solid Democratic South after the civil rights laws were passed.

Raising money from Wall Street, from the drug companies, from health insurance companies, the energy companies, kept [Democrats] from their main contrasting advantage over the Republicans, which is, in FDR’s parlance, “The Democratic Party is the party of working families, Republicans are the party of the rich.” That flipped it completely and left the Democrats extremely vulnerable.

As a result they drew back geographically, to the east coast, west coast and so on.


And that created another millstone: You don’t run a 50-state [presidential] campaign. If you don’t run a 50-state campaign, number one you’re strengthening the opposing party in those states you’ve abandoned, so they can take those states for granted and concentrate on the states that are in the grey area. That was flub number one.

Flub number two is what Ben Barnes, the politically-savvy guy in Texas, told me. He said, when you don’t contest the presidential race in Texas, it rots the whole party down … all the way to mayors and city council. So it replicates this decadence and powerlessness for future years.

When they abandoned the red states, they abandoned five states in the Rocky Mountain area, and started out with a handicap of nine or ten senators.

You may remember from your history, the two senators from Montana were Democrats, Senator Church from Idaho was a Democrat, Senator Frank Moss, great consumer champion, Democrat from Utah. Now there’s almost nobody.
The two senators from Wyoming are Republican, the two senators from Montana are Republican [John Tester, the senior Montana senator, is a Democrat], the two senators from Utah are Republican. I think the Democrats have one seat in Colorado. Then you get down to Arizona and that’s two Republicans.

So they never had a veto-proof majority even at their peak in the Senate. And of course later when they weren’t at their peak it cost them the Senate again and again. And now they’re in a huge hole, with the debacle in the Senate races in 2016, they’re facing three times as many Democrats up for reelection in 2018.

The [third] millstone is they decided to campaign by TV, with political consultants influencing them and getting their 15-20 percent cut. When you campaign by TV you campaign by slogans, you don’t campaign by policy.

Next millstone, the labor unions began getting weak, weak in numbers and weak in leadership. They began shelling out huge money to the Democrats for television. And as they became weaker they lost their grassroots mobilization on behalf of the Democrats.

The Democrats began the process of message preceding policy. No — policy precedes message. That means they kept saying how bad the Republicans are. They campaigned not by saying, look how good we are, we’re going to bring you full Medicare [for all], we’re going to crack down on corporate crime against workers and consumers and the environment, stealing, lying, cheating you. We’re going to get you a living wage. We’re going to get a lean defense, a better defense, and get some of this money and start rebuilding your schools and bridges and water and sewage systems and libraries and clinics.

Instead of saying that, they campaign by saying “Can you believe how bad the Republicans are?”
Now once they say that, they trap their progressive wing, because their progressive wing is the only segment that’s going to change the party to be a more formidable opponent. Because they say to their progressive wing, “You’ve got nowhere to go, get off our back.”

And this went right into the scapegoating of the last twenty years. “Oh, it’s Nader, oh, it’s the Koch Brothers, oh, it’s the electoral college, oh, it’s misogyny, oh, it’s redneck deplorables.” They never look at themselves in the mirror.

RN: Republicans, when they lose they fight over ideas, however horrific they are. Tea Party ideas, libertarian ideas, staid Republican ideas. They fight. But the Democrats want uniformity, they want to shut people up. So they have the most deficient transition of all. They have the transition of Nancy Pelosi to Nancy Pelosi, four-time loser against the worst Republican Party in the Republican Party’s history.

If you put Republican politicians today before the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and “Mr. Conservative” Senator Robert Taft, they’d roll over in their grave. That’s how radically extremist, cruel, vicious, Wall Street, militarist the Republican Party is. Which means that the Democrats should have landslided them. Not just beaten them, landslided them in legislatures around the country, governorships, president and the Congress.

But no, it’s always the scapegoat. Maybe Jill Stein, the little Green Party, they took Pennsylvania and Michigan from Hillary the hawk.

RN: [Another] millstone is they could never contrast themselves with the Republicans on military foreign policy – because they were like them. They never question the military budget, they never question the militarized foreign policy, like Hillary the hawk on Libya, who scared the generals and ran over [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates who opposed her going to the White House to [push for] toppling the regime, metastasizing violence in seven or eight African countries to this day.

So they knocked out foreign and military policy, because they were getting money from Lockheed and Boeing and General Dynamics and Raytheon and so on. Even Elizabeth Warren when she had a chance started talking about maintaining those contracts with Raytheon. Here’s the left wing of the party talking about Raytheon, which is the biggest corporate welfare boondoggle east of the Pecos.

[Another] millstone is: Nobody gets fired. They have defeat after defeat, and they can’t replace their defeated compadres with new, vigorous, energetic people. Labor unions, the same thing. They [stay in positions] into their eighties no matter how screwed up the union is. You don’t get fired no matter how big the loss is, unlike in the business community, where you get fired.

The last millstone is, they make sure by harassing progressive third parties that the third party never pushes them. I’m an expert on that. They try to get them off the ballot. We had twenty-four lawsuits in twelve weeks in the summer of 2004 to get us off the ballots of dozens of states by the Democratic Party. Whereas if we got five percent, six percent of the vote they would be under great pressure to change their leadership and change their practice because there would be enough American voters who say to the Democrats, “We do have some place to go,” a viable third party. They harass them, they violate civil liberties, they use their Democrat-appointed judges to get bad decisions or harassing depositions. Before [third parties] finally clear the deck one way or the other it’s Labor Day and they’ve got an eight-week campaign.

There are some people who think the Democratic Party can be reformed from within by changing the personnel. I say good luck to that. What’s happened in the last twenty years? They’ve gotten more entrenched. Get rid of Pelosi, you get Steny Hoyer. You get rid of Harry Reid, you get [Charles] Schumer. Good luck.

Unfortunately, to put it in one phrase, the Democrats are unable to defend the United States of America from the most vicious, ignorant, corporate-indentured, militaristic, anti-union, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-posterity [Republican Party] in history.

End of lecture.
Avatar : Elsa Hosk
Sig : The Iconic Duo, Billie Kay & Peyton Royce


AP

  • ********
  • 14942
  • +52/-48
    • View Profile
Re: Julian Assange : Why the Democratic party is doomed
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2017, 08:39:01 PM »
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

Ralph Nader really lays it out as to where and how the Dems started losing, going all the way back to the 70's.
Of course they'll deflect by citing the 2000 election.

Going by the comments there are some idiots who still haven't gotten over that shit.