Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Sanders Thread: Post you nerds!

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 12 Jun 2016, 20:27
Already being reported that the shooter called 911 to pledge allegiance to the cause of Daesh. True? Possibly. It crawled across the screen on MSNBC as well as Fox.

Will a shooting in a gay club benefit Der Drumpf? What responsible right winger wants to arm gay people?

I can't really picture Ben Carson saying that if he was only armed when he went to gay clubs, he could hold off any attacker.

Of course, the wider issue is that providing fanatics with easy access to guns leads to massacres on an ever increasing scale.

I would HOPE that this is a wake up call to authorities to start closing off gun show loopholes and tightening avenues of legal access to weapons.

But it's Florida. I don't hope for much of anything.

Meanwhile, yes, Teabgaggers will make merry over this and Drumpfkopfs might pick up some steam.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 13 Jun 2016, 05:28
It actually looks like Trump screwed up. He acted too fast, too soon and it came off (obviously) like he was cynically using a mass shooting at a gay nightclub to bolster his falling poll numbers. It's actually leading to nothing but backlash.

The kicker: it was Latino Night at the club. The deceased were disproportionately Latino. So much for Trump using this.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2016, 06:15
I'm starting to see a ton of posts from Teabaggers using the Wounded Knee and other Indian massacres to deflect the blame straight back on to Der Gub'mint.

Gun nuts and their enablers will stoop to anything to hang on to their precious dick-totems.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Jun 2016, 03:39
lol Islamists would love a Trump presidency.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jun 2016, 08:12
Pioneer
Post 24 Jun 2016, 04:23
You guys are funny. Reading all these posts I see the your prognostications have failed on the candidates. You should be talking about how wrong you were about Sanders beating Hillary in the primary. No, you just blithely chat along not having learned a thing about how do to a correct analysis of a candidate.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 24 Jun 2016, 05:52
piusv wrote:
You guys are funny. Reading all these posts I see the your prognostications have failed on the candidates. You should be talking about how wrong you were about Sanders beating Hillary in the primary. No, you just blithely chat along not having learned a thing about how do to a correct analysis of a candidate.

Image


Wow, you're making friends everywhere you go. Care to enlighten us as to the proper protocol on analyzing a candidate?
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jun 2016, 08:12
Pioneer
Post 24 Jun 2016, 18:28
well you can always count on me to be candid. Looking at the posts, do you deny that the analysis of Sanders was based on anything other than, "gee, it would be great if Sanders beat Hillary, therefore, Sanders will beat Hillary". Sanders never had a chance to beat Hillary. He was popular among young, white, progressive and social justice warriors. So that means he does well in NH, VT, ME and Washington. He did get quite a few delegates but there was never any doubt that more conservative dems would choose Hillary, if only because they think that Sanders could not win a general election.
I think Hillary will beat Trump. Why? Because Trump needs states like Florida, Ohio, NC and Virginia. These states have changed their demographics since 2004, the last time a republican won in any of them. A republican might be able to win Florida, but a moderate republican, not Trump.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 24 Jun 2016, 20:03
piusv wrote:
well you can always count on me to be candid. Looking at the posts, do you deny that the analysis of Sanders was based on anything other than, "gee, it would be great if Sanders beat Hillary, therefore, Sanders will beat Hillary".

Actually, most of us said it was unlikely he'd win.

Quote:
I think Hillary will beat Trump. Why? Because Trump needs states like Florida, Ohio, NC and Virginia. These states have changed their demographics since 2004, the last time a republican won in any of them. A republican might be able to win Florida, but a moderate republican, not Trump.

Trump stands a good chance in Ohio and NC, and a decent (but below-average) one in Florida, based on current polling numbers.

He won't win Virginia, he lags very badly there. He also may or may not turn Arizona into a swing state due to hatred of him there. I agree that it's less than likely he'd win, but "he can't win Florida" isn't true.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 25 Jun 2016, 01:24
Sure, there were moments there when I thought Bernie could really pull it off. It was a long shot, but not completely impossible. The lack of an email or Benghazi related indictment basically sunk Bernie's chances.

I'd like to reiterate that I don't have a "favorite President" or any especial personal adoration for any political figure, past or present. Some of them are privileged rich kids a la FDR whose experience of pain and suffering gave them a new perspective on the plight of the po' folk. Others are time serving hive drones who exist to fill empty suits and promote the party line.

My "analysis" of candidates basically consists of checking their voting records. Based on such criteria, Hillary pulls it off in marginal fashion against Donald.

Meanwhile, the real attention - as always - should be devoted downballot. This is where the Kochs are spending their vast ill gotten gains. Look for a barrage of Teabaggers who have recently had a shave, a haircut, and a whole lot of media training. The more extreme Donald pulls, the more "to the center" the average Koch Kandidate is going to want to appear.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 27 Jun 2016, 02:48
So Bernie has announced that, if push comes to shove, he'll vote for Hillary.

Meanwhile, everyone's favorite weasel-y Republigeek, George Will, has announced he'll leave the part rather than support Donald.

Everyone is saying such defections seriously harm the party, but who knows? I am very surprised no savvy media figure has cajoled Colin Powell into uttering a similar heretical statement.

I'd love to see the right wing base split in as many pieces as possible, but it's only legit if enough country clubbers leave the big tent to found their own party. So far, it's much more likely that the majority will either publicly toe the line to keep their grip on down ballot races as tight as possible, or simply move to shore up their funds elsewhere in preparation for a possible economic takeover of the Caymans (uttered half-facetiously).
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 01 Jul 2016, 18:25
I'm having a hard time letting go of this Bernie thread.

Latest news: Loretta Sanchez is apparently the determining factor in a possible FBI investigation of Hillary's emails? After meeting with Der Bill, she has decided to "accept the FBI ruling" whichever way it falls. My gut tells me this is the end of it.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jun 2016, 08:12
Pioneer
Post 02 Jul 2016, 17:50
that Hillary will win is a foregone conclusion. The only question now is what will a Clinton presidency entail? What will it effect? Will the GOP lose control over the house of representatives? What about the senate? The USSC will be packed with liberals once all those old justices pop off. You better start your analysis of the Clinton admin. I am not so concerned about the domestic but rather the foreign policy of the future because hillary never saw a "humanitarian" intervention or NFZ she didn't like. Very dangerous. Her Syria policy is also wrong.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 02 Jul 2016, 23:10
It looks like Donald Trump had a child rape case filed against him. He's being accused of having raped a 13 year old.

If the Bill Cosby and Jimmy Savile precedent teaches us anything, it's that the powerful get away with this shit easily and those "ridiculous" allegations often have truth behind them.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 02 Jul 2016, 23:42
MissStrangelove wrote:
It looks like Donald Trump had a child rape case filed against him. He's being accused of having raped a 13 year old.

If the Bill Cosby and Jimmy Savile precedent teaches us anything, it's that the powerful get away with this shit easily and those "ridiculous" allegations often have truth behind them.

True, but the timing is suspicious. The final nail in Cosby's coffin dropped out of the clear blue sky. Ditto the Jackson business.

I'm not saying Trump isn't a slimy sociopath with the capability of being a rapist, but this is exactly the sort of allegation that could have/should have done him in years ago. We'll see what evidence is presented, and by whom.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 03 Jul 2016, 00:22
Comrade Gulper wrote:
True, but the timing is suspicious. The final nail in Cosby's coffin dropped out of the clear blue sky. Ditto the Jackson business.

I'm not saying Trump isn't a slimy sociopath with the capability of being a rapist, but this is exactly the sort of allegation that could have/should have done him in years ago. We'll see what evidence is presented, and by whom.

The issue is, while this is the first underage allegation, it's not the first rape allegation made against him. His ex-wife Ivana accused him of it years ago in a sworn court deposition, halfway walking it back (but not really) only when confronted by Trump's lawyers a few years later.

Quote:
The details surrounding the alleged rape are bizarrely novelistic even by Trumpian standards. According to Ivana, Trump was driven to freakish rage by a failed anti-baldness surgery - a so-called 'scalp reduction'. But the actions are very clear cut. According to her deposition, Trump flew into a rage, attacked her, held her down and began pulling hair out of her head to mimic his pain and then forcibly penetrated her.

Trump of course denies Ivana's claim. And Ivana Trump, who now has an amicable relationship with her ex-husband has gone to great lengths to downplay the incident. But she has never taken back the claim only stating that while she said he had "raped" her she did not "want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."

When Ivana Trump claims were first reported in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump Trump's lawyers provided a statement from Ivana in which she said: "During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me. [O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent."

After The Daily Beast resurfaced Ivana's claims that Donald had raped her, she issued another statement saying the story, which was based entirely on her own sworn deposition, was "totally without merit." Yet again, she didn't dispute her words or the incident itself. It is true that lots of accusations get made during acrimonious divorces. But this was a pretty concrete and specific. And the author of the book that first surfaced the deposition said he'd found numerous friends of Ivana's who she had confided the incident to at the time.

So, apparently it wasn't "literally" rape, except in the sense that it was forced penetration and in the context of some angry fit, which is to say it sounds like literally rape.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 03 Jul 2016, 01:31
But if the present case involving a 13 year old is legit, it will need to be filed and followed up by someone that is absolutely immune to the threat of Trump's power as well as the lure of the Trump dollar. The only way that could happen is if the case was taken on as a special project of Clinton, Inc.

For the sake of the girl involved, I hope it isn't true. As for Trump himself, he deserves to be in jail pretty much for eternity, so I won't feel bad if he goes down on this. I can't imagine Hillary bringing it up directly unless it goes to court, but I do expect to see it pop up on emails from the DNC within the week.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.