Also a great Newsroom episode where Will McAvoy, REGISTERED REPUBLICAN, gradually comes around to the realisation that the Republicans are just being mean babies and democrats will restore all the noble bipartisanship of the good old days.

idk how the **** anybody can stand these fake political shows like newsroom and house of cards, i get enough of this **** irl

Yeah I thought WW was good in that it trained more people to think critically and understand nuance. But this year is so f'ed up that even the new season of homeland doesn't move the needle for me. it's just a tamer more boring alternative reality in which Twitter and mass media aren't as prominent.

American political discourse is hilarious in that wanting evidence turns you into a insert bad guy-apologist. We all know WMDs in Iraq and how much of that was complete bull****. The first Gulf War was predicated on Iraqis killing Kuwaiti babies by pulling them out of incubators -- also bull****. Vietnam War started because of Gulf of Tonkin -- hey, also bull****! We've been bull****ting for awhile -- the Spanish American War was based upon FAKE NEWS about the Spanish blowing up the USS Maine (the blow up was likely caused internally by accident).

All of this, and what Tulsi is saying, is not that Assad could not have done this. It simply means that before we start bombing the government of another nation, who is aligned with the other nuclear superpower in the world, we need hard, conclusive evidence. Senior U.S. official quoted in the Times or the Wash Post who's claims are backed by classified radar images of Russian jets over the area bombed at the same time is not conclusive enough given the incredibly, incredibly high stakes of beginning a conflict such as this.

she hates muslims. there a fairly consistent segment of people that supports the dictators that keep their booth on ordinary muslims and doesnt care about how many civilians die in the process. modi fangirl too

She doesn't support US-led regime change, as it has gone terribly in Iraq and Libya. Replacing very bad person with power vacuum in unstable areas has made the countries even worse. Again, as I mentioned before, this is particularly touchy in Syria given Syria is backed by the other nuclear superpower in the world.

USA establishment politicians continue to be friends with many terrible dictatorships/oppressive governments -- Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt etc. -- that kill dissidents, have terrible human rights records, etc. However, liberals and conservatives turn a blind eye, or even cheer, these relationships because they are establishment approved.

So you're saying we should approve her cozy relationship with Assad because other relationships with dictators are being "turned a blind eye" to. That's whataboutism. If relationships with bad dictators are bad, they are bad. Gabbard has got to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I'm assuming Tulsi's stance on this is that exploring options with Assad, and keeping a terrible dictator in power, is preferable to regime change that will lead to an ISIS-run state and piss off the other nation in the world that has the capability to end modern civilization as we know it. I agree with this stance. I believe Tulsi feels strongly about avoiding regime change because she lived it in Iraq during the failed war -- she has a different perspective from real world experience as opposed to politicians like Howard Dean who were cashing sweet lobbying checks at the same time.

I bring up the establishment's cozy relationships with dictators for the hypocrisy that it shows. Hilary, Obama, Kerry, were buddy buddy with some terrible regimes. For example, Saudi Arabia has been leveling Yemen the past few years with Obama's support (yes, Trump has escalated it). Many children and woman blown to bits. Yes, they died via shrapnel, gunshots, fires, debris etc. -- not sarin gas. But the establishment, MSNBC, etc. will never decry Obama's, Kerry's support for this, yet they have no problem chanting "Gabbard has got to go" -- so catchy.

Perhaps you feel these relationships are justified. But then that concedes the point that how we treat dictators is not black and white, and therefore working with Assad is not an automatic "got to go" line.

It should be noted that again, Tulsi is asking for evidence. Her visit with Assad was before this chemical strike, and she has not said that such a strike was impossible. I believe she has stated if an independent investigation found conclusive evidence that Assad ordered this chemical strike, she would support UN actions to punish Assad.

He has zero intention of doing anything of the kind. Just more grandstanding -- he participated in favor of the nuclear option in 2013. Now he wants us to believe he is too much of a gentlemen to have done what was done last week if he were in the other guy's shoes. GMAFB.

Nothing I've seen posted in this forum for sure warrants just throwing Tulsi under the bus. We are causing the next Syria catastrophe along with one of the most repressive regimes in the world in Yemen and were doing it under Obama. Lots of times congresspeople have visited and talked to whoever and the way that has been used has been bull**** like when Pelosi met with Assad in 2007. People, Democrats, are bringing up Tusli's Hindu background here. I'd say she's been a bit foolish, but unless there's more than what has been brought up this is bull****.

She was on Wolf Blitzer, and try as he might, he couldn't get Gabbard to lay one thing at the feet of Assad.

You can easily stake out an anti-war position that acknowledges Assad's scumminess. Many have. I get why she's doing it, and I'm not calling for her ouster or anything of the sort, but it's pretty ****ed up.

AllTheCheese,

That's fine. The calls to primary her seem way overboard and Robespierreish.

Is it possible that the Democratic party will even wonder if maybe getting close in Kansas had something to do with the particular Democratic candidate (not DemE) and not just Trump's unpopularity?

Maybe the other Dem in the primary would have lost by 30 points.

Just about sums it up



https://twitter.com/michaelwhitney/s...34328649359362

In response to facing an unprecedented block on all federal judicial nominees by ... yep... you guessed it... the GOP!

Who can forget the dark horrors of his Reign of Primaries

Can't believe Dvault1 skipped out on dispensing knowledge like this.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...anxiety-236330

Even more knowledge dropping by the Democrats

A good take on the DCCC strategy, its weaknesses and some of the internal politics involved

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...80/dccc-kansas

As an aside, has there been a time when "and make no mistake" wasn't a signifier that whatever is coming next is bullsh*t?

Just like people are usually lying when they say "honestly" or maybe that one thing was true, but nothing else that you just said was.

"Honestly," is used oftentimes as a substitute for "actually," or when the speaker is going to offer up information that the listener/audience may find surprising or damaging to their delicate sensibilities. Completely disagree that it's "usually" an indicator of a lie

Speaking of generalizations, your assertion is "usually" an oversimplification that pious, self aggrandizing people make all the time in an effort to project wokeness or moral superiority

STFU stoner.

"But the idea that national Democrats couldn’t do a single thing to help a long-shot candidate in a red district..."

Can someone smarter than me explain the Dems reasoning (or lack thereof) here? I would have thought picking up a "safe" GOP seat that came into play would have been a good idea, but the powers that be couldn't be bothered?

Hunter Thompson (RIP) wrote a long article after the '72 election, where he argued that the Dems would rather have the GOP win than run the risk of having to deal with members of their own party that weren't blessed by the highest ranking dems. Or was this just simple incompetence/not thinking they had a shot until it was too late to get the guy some funding?

MM MD

Ya bro i must have so much brain damage from smoking weed, must make you feel like complete **** to have nothing else to say when i correct you

Bong bro, I told you to stfu.