The Dem **** Show starts tonight,

[Steeltime]

LOL, I should have guessed, the ******* drudge report. So the far-right drudge report loonies view Gabbard as the winner of the Democrats' first debate. Tells you everything you need to know. Hilarious.


"The conservative Drudge Report's instant poll shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as the biggest winner of the first night of the 2020 Democratic presidential debates."

You may need some extra lotion, Tibs:

Yeah, but that is from the right-leaning Goolag.

Never mind. Good news - CVS has your lotion on sale.

 

[Tibs]

Thank you for AGAIN proving my point that you maintain the narrow view that your side is pristine clean and can do no wrong and the other side is always awful and can do no right. This is why our country fails.

Not at all, I don't view Dem politicians as pristine clean, just because they're Dems, not by a long shot. I also don't think the other side is always awful and can do no right. That's simply not the case. I do think the Trump presidency is a unique, incomparable situation where everything's come together in a perfect **** storm. A deeply-flawed candidate, hostile foreign interference in American elections and politics, breathtaking levels of nepotism, a loss of democratic norms, attacks on the free press, the cow-towing to dictators small and large, the dehumanization of asylum seekers, the acceptance of open racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry. Under Trump, America has seemed to have lost its moral compass like at no other time in recent history. That's what I'm railing against, not simply partisan politics.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Yay! Hip hip hooray! Who the **** cares about Americans’ constitutional rights to participate in their democracy equally & choose their representatives? **** that ****. Winner takes all, *******! Yee haw!

Yep. Exactly. You're speaking to me. I live in Maryland. And I'm a Conservative forever ****** by the gerrymandering in MD to ensure MD remains an over-taxed Democratic state. I've lived here for 28 years, been gerrymandered several times by the crooked Dems. My vote has never counted, ever - except to oust criminal O'Malley and elect Hogan as governor.

I think you're missing the point though. I for one would prefer the gerrymandering be controlled. But what SCOTUS said was it's a state's issue. I agree.

They punted.

Boo hoo.

 

[fedderone]

Not at all, I don't view Dem politicians as pristine clean, just because they're Dems, not by a long shot. I also don't think the other side is always awful and can do no right. That's simply not the case. I do think the Trump presidency is a unique, incomparable situation where everything's come together in a perfect **** storm. A deeply-flawed candidate, hostile foreign interference in American elections and politics, breathtaking levels of nepotism, a loss of democratic norms, attacks on the free press, the cow-towing to dictators small and large, the dehumanization of asylum seekers, the acceptance of open racism, sexism, homophobia and bigotry. Under Trump, America has seemed to have lost its moral compass like at no other time in history. That's what I'm railing against, not simply partisan politics.

So you just don't believe in pointing the finger and shaking it at your side then?
Only at the other side.

I'm not a republican or democrat.
I have voted for both in my lifetime. As well as other political affiliations.
I just weep at the fact that those firmly entrenched in their party put blinders on to the wrongs and ills they point at the opposition about.
I didn't vote for Trump. And I have maintained that the flat tire beat the square wheel in 2016.
But until we hold EVERYONE accountable, even those on "our side" then we will continue to stupidly fight amongst each other about nonsense instead of tackling the real issues together.
Divide and conquer.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Go back and look at the series of events that took place right around the election. Read about how McConnell blocked any attempt by President Obama to call out Russia for election interference. Look at Trump's position on the Russian attack on our elections, right from the very beginning. That it was fake news, that it never happened. Never confronted Putin, to this day. Look at Trump's words and actions in Helsinki. Read the Mueller report outline hundreds of contacts between Trump campaign and Russians. Look at Trump's position on Wikileaks and the hacked, stolen emails.

It's all very consistent. Any comparison between Obama and Trump on the Russian attacks on our elections is an extreme case of drawing false equivalence. Classic apples & oranges. And this remains true to this very day, this very hour. Trump has actually doubled down and has made it clear he has no problem whatsoever with foreign interference in our elections. It's what helped get him elected, he'll welcome more of the same between now and Nov 2020. It is outrageous.

Yep, he has lost his ******* mind.

 

[Superman]

from what I watched last night, Gabbard was the only one up there who seemed sure of herself, had answers to questions, didn't deflect nor thank the moderator for asking the question and expressing her appreciation of the question being asked by the moderator while she carefully chose the words to blurt out - unlike Beta, Spartacus, Warren, Snotclog, DeBlasio, etc

I will commend Spartacus for creating a victim class right there on stage in front of the entire country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...first-democratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816

We do not talk enough about trans Americans, especially African-American trans Americans...

WTF is an African-American trans American? Black people driving Trans Ams? ****, us white people want some Trans Ams, too. Why aren't we talking about Caucasian-American trans Americans?

Beta was doing his best impersonation of a the love child between Bob Dole and Tim Kaine, by using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing but emphasizing it with profound nothingness.

Oh, and to remind you, Spartacus wanted everyone to know he was the only African American man on stage.

DeBlasio - holy ****. dude brought up the black son he's raising. Can we have more identity politics?

Then Faucahontas with this stunner:

We are democracy...

Proving you can get paid $500/hr in this economy to teach a college class even when you have no idea what type of government we have...
https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html

Q76. "Is the United States a constitutional republic? Is one of the purposes of a constitutional republic to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority?"

A. The United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy.

The "federal" part is one of three basic types of organization of power — unitary, confederal, and federal. Most nations are unitary in nature (local government with a powerful national government). There are no confederacies that I know of at this time (the U.S., under the Articles of Confederation was one; Germany and Switzerland have also had confederate systems in the past). Federal systems are common among large nations where several levels of government are needed. Australia, Canada, and Brazil are federal as well. Federations do not always work, such as in the case of the United Arab Republic.

The "republic" implies that we have a strong head of state (the President) and elected officials representing the people.

The "constitutional" part means that we have a constitution, which is pretty obvious, considering this site. Finally, the "representative democracy" part means that the people elect representatives to take care of legislative matters. Originally, the only part of the government that fit this description was the House of Representatives. Today, the Senate does, too, and in current practice, so does the Electoral College.

The mere fact that a nation has a constitution, is a federation, or is a republic, does not imply that minorities are fairly treated. It is the content of that constitution, and the values of that federation and/or republic that protects the rights of minorities.

Note that a democracy, in the true sense of the word, does not protect the minority — majority rules.

To remind you, Spartacus wanted everyone to know he was the only African American man on stage.

Delaney said we need to have the country heal and come together as one. No one else had the ******* balls to say that --- even if he didn't mean it.

 

[thesteelcity]

LOL, I should have guessed, the ******* drudge report. So the far-right drudge report loonies view Gabbard as the winner of the Democrats' first debate. Tells you everything you need to know. Hilarious.


"The conservative Drudge Report's instant poll shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as the biggest winner of the first night of the 2020 Democratic presidential debates."

Seriously Tibs, does it really matter who won the debate last night? In all honestly, it's like the Browns winning their first pre-season game. Come six months from now, no one will still care.

 

[IndySteel]

Ha ha, Savage just called the mods Cuck Todd and Lester Dolt, lmao. They all clearly favored Pocahontas. Tonight they be all in for Biden and maybe the *****.

 

[Tibs]

Seriously Tibs, does it really matter who won the debate last night? In all honestly, it's like the Browns winning their first pre-season game. Come six months from now, no one will still care.

Absolutely, you're right, it doesn't matter much at this stage, same goes for tonight's debate. I'd like the field to narrow down to 5-6 in the not too distant future so we can start taking this a bit more seriously. For now, it's just about sound bites and hot takes.

 

[ark steel]

from what I watched last night, Gabbard was the only one up there who seemed sure of herself, had answers to questions, didn't deflect nor thank the moderator for asking the question and expressing her appreciation of the question being asked by the moderator while she carefully chose the words to blurt out - unlike Beta, Spartacus, Warren, Snotclog, DeBlasio, etc

I will commend Spartacus for creating a victim class right there on stage in front of the entire country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...first-democratic-primary-debate-2019-n1022816


WTF is an African-American trans American? Black people driving Trans Ams? ****, us white people want some Trans Ams, too. Why aren't we talking about Caucasian-American trans Americans?

Beta was doing his best impersonation of a the love child between Bob Dole and Tim Kaine, by using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing but emphasizing it with profound nothingness.

Oh, and to remind you, Spartacus wanted everyone to know he was the only African American man on stage.

DeBlasio - holy ****. dude brought up the black son he's raising. Can we have more identity politics?

Then Faucahontas with this stunner:


Proving you can get paid $500/hr in this economy to teach a college class even when you have no idea what type of government we have...
https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html



To remind you, Spartacus wanted everyone to know he was the only African American man on stage.

Delaney said we need to have the country heal and come together as one. No one else had the ******* balls to say that --- even if he didn't mean it.

Yeah, but, just like the others, Delaney means all us conservatives need to die.

 

[Superman]

 

[ark steel]

"Russia without question is our number one geopolitical foe." - Mitt Romney
"The 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years." - Barack Obama
This was at one of the 2012 Presidential Debates.

Prior to that, in February of 2012, was Obama caught on an open mic telling a Russian official that he'd have more flexibility negotiating missile sites once he was in his second term.

Soooooooo who exactly is coddling up to Russians, being soft on Russia, is a Putin puppet, and is treasonous?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama was the sitting president when all this "Russian interference" was taking place during our 2016 election process, was he not?
Obama was the one who said he'd sit down with any world leader without preconditions, yes?

How soon we forget.

It is not forgotten, it is ignored.

 

[thesteelcity]

Absolutely, you're right, it doesn't matter much at this stage, same goes for tonight's debate. I'd like the field to narrow down to 5-6 in the not too distant future so we can start taking this a bit more seriously. For now, it's just about sound bites and hot takes.

absolutely. They need to get their best ready for the fight and stop pulling the rug out from eachother, but I do find it amusing.

 

[ark steel]

Totally agree. Not sure how the GOP and evangelicals have been able to look past the 17 credible allegations against Trump for sexual assault, including rape. Blows the mind.

"Credible "....

 

[wig]

The thing is going to be the Elfie and Tibs melt-down when the election comes around again. How long was Tibs mia? was it 6 months last time?

 

[Steelworth]

In response to Ark's post, yeah, this is real credible:



******* whack job.

 

[Tibs]

The thing is going to be the Elfie and Tibs melt-down when the election comes around again. How long was Tibs mia? was it 6 months last time?

You won't have to wait that long, that's a hell of a long way away. I take periodic breaks from the board to 1. salvage my brain cells, 2. salvage my sanity, 3. salvage my faith in America and Americans.

Then, after whatever amount of time away, I climb back down in the pigsty for some good 'ol mud slinging with the Trump base. However long it lasts varies. Thanks for thinking of me wig, appreciate it!

 

[Superman]

You won't have to wait that long, that's a hell of a long way away. I take periodic breaks from the board to 1. salvage my brain cells, 2. salvage my sanity, 3. salvage my faith in America and Americans.

Then, after whatever amount of time away, I climb back down in the pigsty for some good 'ol mud slinging with the Trump base. However long it lasts varies. Thanks for thinking of me wig, appreciate it!

still waiting on your explanation why Obama did nothing to thwart the alleged Russian interference in the election.

 

[Steeltime]

Then, after whatever amount of time away, I climb back down in the pigsty for some good 'ol mud slinging with the Trump base.

I don't sling mud at you, Tibs. I respond to your allegations with facts, articles linked to back up my facts, and graphs and charts evidencing my points.

And I am still waiting for you to cite to me the part of the Mueller report that explains how the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on the 2016 election. Like you, apparently, I have not been able to track that down. The Mueller report did say the following, however (verbatim):

"And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify any evidence that any campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section 2, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section IV, above."

Isn't that what Barr reported? Why, he may have been right about the report. Interesting ...

Meanwhile, you keep claiming things about the report, yet cannot seem to cite support for your claims.

 

[Tibs]

still waiting on your explanation why Obama did nothing to thwart the alleged Russian interference in the election.

Supe, this has been discussed ad nauseum. Obama should have been much more forceful and straightforward in dealing with this in 2016, no doubt about it. He deserves all the criticism levied against him.

His reasoning for doing what he did is well documented. This is a good overview:

“It was a politically perilous issue for the White House. President Obama did not want to be perceived as interfering in the election himself on behalf of Hillary Clinton,” Isikoff said. “There were concerns that if they did so, it would look they, the White House, was putting the thumb on the scale of the election and would feed Trump’s narrative that the election was going to be rigged.”

“There were people inside the White House who were saying that what the Russians were doing is really serious, is really unprecedented, and we need to strike back in real time because otherwise the message is going to be that you can get away with it,” Isikoff said.

Suggestions ranged from launching denial of service attacks on Russian news sites to shutting down some of the online personas, such as Guccifer 2.0, and spreading U.S. government intelligence to expose corruption in Putin’s government.

“The Obama White House decided not to go there. There was concern that this could start a cyberwar that could escalate out of control and the Russians could strike back by going after our electric grid,” Isikoff said. “James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, raised that concern. … The idea that the U.S. government’s hands were tied because we are so vulnerable to a foreign adversary’s cyber-attacks is pretty scary in and of itself.”

Ultimately, Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, ordered those looking into possible retaliation against Moscow to “stand down,” Isikoff said, thinking that if any of the efforts became public they would tie the president’s hands. Instead, Obama sought to enlist Republican congressional leaders to craft a joint statement with Democrats that would condemn Putin’s government.

And cue Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan....will they step up for America? Of course not...

“The Obama folks did not want any public statement they made about what the Russians were doing to look partisan,” Isikoff said, “because they were afraid that Trump would use it for political effect. So their idea was, ‘Well, if we can get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to sign on to a bipartisan statement, that might cushion the White House from any attacks made by Trump that Obama was trying to tilt the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.’”

McConnell refused to sign the joint statement, leaving Obama out on his own.

“As he saw it, any statement along those lines would only feed the Clinton campaign’s narrative,” Isikoff said. “His concern at that point was holding on to power in the Senate, so McConnell unquestionably takes some responsibility.”

In the end, Obama ****** up big time. He should have brought the hammer down on Putin and Russia. Who cares how apeshit Trump and his base would have gotten. He falsely thought the GOP would be patriotic enough to condemn this hostile action. What became clear as day, Trump and the GOP had only one thing on their minds, winning the election, at whatever cost to national security and maintaining free and fair elections.

And that brings us to present day, where Trump & the GOP are entrenched in their reluctance to confront Putin and Russia. Worse yet, Trump is welcoming whatever assistance he can get from foreign governments. Why screw with what got him here? And as history shows, Putin is more than happy to step through that door which has been swung wide open.

It's high time that door is slammed shut. This is not a partisan issue and should not be viewed as such. This affects all Americans now and in the future.


Why Obama didn’t act on Russian election interference benefiting Trump
https://news.yahoo.com/obama-didnt-...interference-benefitting-trump-090006944.html

Obama cybersecurity czar: Russian hackers likely scanned election systems in all 50 states
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...nned-all-50-state-election-systems/717652002/

FACT CHECK: Why Didn't Obama Stop Russia's Election Interference In 2016?
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/5876...a-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016

 

[Steeltime]

Tibs - What one of your sources said:

So why didn't Obama's administration do more?

That isn't clear. Some former administration officials who have talked about it publicly have reproached themselves for not acting more aggressively. There also was a long-standing criticism of Obama that his foreign-policy making amounted to endless process with no outcomes — hours of meetings that yielded more meetings but no ultimate action.

Plus, the relationship between the United States and Russia is multifaceted and often intensely complicated:

• Obama scaled back missile defense plans in Europe to placate Moscow.
• Obama wanted Russia to play a role in the international agreement under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear program — and Putin went along.
• Obama spent the end of his presidency trying to bring Russia into a multilateral agreement to end the Syrian civil war, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ultimately never committed.

So Obama's team had to manage many spinning plates in addition to the active measures campaign it detected by the middle of 2016.

Hardly an approval of Bammy's efforts towards Russia's actions, Tibs.

 

[Tibs]

Steeltime, all of that criticism of Obama's foreign policy is warranted.

What Trump has done, and continues to do, is a whole different ballgame. It's next gen level ****.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I might watch tonight. Always fun to watch Biden form thoughts.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Steeltime, all of that criticism of Obama's foreign policy is warranted.

What Trump has done, and continues to do, is a whole different ballgame. It's next gen level ****.

Agree 100%.

 

[Steeltime]

Steeltime, all of that criticism of Obama's foreign policy is warranted.

What Trump has done, and continues to do, is a whole different ballgame. It's next gen level ****.

Okay. Like what?

And please don't link an article you very likely have not read, make me read it, and point out it does not say what you claim it says.

As to Russia, here is what Trump has DONE - not said, not "lines in the sand," but what he has DONE:

August 3, 2017: Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump signed into law Wednesday morning legislation that levies new sanctions against Russia and restricts Trump's own ability to ease sanctions in place against Moscow. The bill is one of the first major pieces of legislation that was sent to Trump's desk, and it represents a rebuke of the President by giving Congress new veto power to block him from removing Russia sanctions.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/donald-trump-russia-sanctions-bill/index.html

April 6, 2018: WASHINGTON — The Trump administration imposed new sanctions on seven of Russia’s richest men and 17 top government officials on Friday in the latest effort to punish President Vladimir V. Putin’s inner circle for interference in the 2016 election and other Russian aggressions. The sanctions are designed to penalize some of Russia’s richest industrialists, who are seen in the West as enriching themselves from Mr. Putin’s increasingly authoritarian administration.

Effectively, the action prevents the oligarchs from traveling to the United States or doing business or even opening a bank account with any major company or bank in the West. It also restricts foreign individuals from facilitating transactions on their behalf. Elizabeth Rosenberg, a former sanctions official in the Obama administration, described the penalties as “fairly muscular” and predicted that more sanctions are probably coming.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/us/politics/trump-sanctions-russia-putin-oligarchs.html

July 20, 2018: It's another sign of Trump's efforts to build closer ties with Moscow, even though he insists his administration has taken a hard line toward Russia.

"There's never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. That might sound like hyperbole, but in this case, there's actually some basis for the president's boast.

"When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era," said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Take military spending: Trump sought to add $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2018 to the European Deterrence Initiative — a military effort to deter Russian aggression that was initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative. That's a 41 percent increase from the last year of the Obama administration. The president also agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine — a step that Obama resisted. And Trump gave U.S. forces in Syria more leeway to engage with Russian troops.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia

CNN, the NYT and NPR. Right-wing sites, I guess. Right?

Once again, your never-ending and unfounded belief that Trump is Hitler simply distorts your analysis. It really does.