Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Jimmy... Dead., Jun 19, 2014.
Because? Looks like some Czech TDS....
This could go into the Mort thread, but I think it's actually News worthy. AG Barr dropping truth bombs. These are FAX
Bad answer, weak pushback by fanboy Dore.
Umm, I don't know how you came up with that conclusion. The reason is that he's been accused of fraud for which there is evidence, but it turns out there's no way to hold him accountable and put him on trial because he has his people on all important positions. He has basically made a mafia out of the government. So no, this is not like "TDS", because Babiš is a very competent criminal.
I tried to put it as short as possible but this is of course just the tip of the iceberg and the entire story has been developing for years.
I guess I'm skeptical because similar claims and protests have been made about Trump with zero evidence.
Can't listen to the vote right now, is this the same resolution voted on July 23 (HR 246) or is there something newer? Because that particular resolution was just a puff piece fwiw, it denounced BDS but didn't do anything to enact penalties for those supporting BDS, and even contained a pity clause saying that they support 1A rights to criticize foreign allies (even if that is a bit of very soft double-speak). The real issue comes from mostly-evangelical Republican states who refuse contractors that don't take oaths to God's Chosen and etc.
It did remind me of the existence of Thomas Massie though, apparently the only Republican to vote against it. Kentuckan, electrical engineer, far right-libertarian, and looks like a total nerd, love that guy. Kentucky is truly one of our greatest states.
Yes that resolution, and the issue isn't the particulars of the bill itself but Tulsi's answer on the show. It's the kind of weasel-worded response I'd never expect from her, I think it's some bad optics.
Fuck it let me transcribe it for you:
Dore: People made a ruckus out of your vote they said it was anti-BDS, right? Tell us why you voted for that, because there was a reason, and then you also voted for Rashida Tlaib's bill that also spoke to that so can you talk about that?
Tulsi: Yes there were a few bills that came to congress, either for co-sponsorship or came to the floor for a vote. I took a vote on a bill that spoke to finding a peaceful solution to the ongoing conflict in the middle-east, part of that bill said... I don't have the exact language - it did condemn the BDS movement which I didn't necessarily agree with the language but I voted on it because I don't think that this BDS movement is the only or perhaps even the best way to achieve that peaceful outcome of security and stability for both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, I think that's got to be our focus and objective. Right along side that I co-sponsored a bill I think was originally introduced by Ilhan Omar and congressman John Lewis that spoke to the protection of freedom of speech in our own country which I wholeheartedly stand up for to protect and defend, especially as a service member willing to give my life to do so. So while I personally disagree with the tactics of the BDS movement to achieve that objective I absolutely and wholeheartedly support the rights for those who choose to be involved with that or choosing that as their method of protest, without fear of repercussions either from state government or our federal government.
Dore: So the natural question then is, if you don't support the BDS which is a non-violent way to protest the occupation, what non-violent protest - cos when they non-violently protest they shoot them - so what would be a way that they could protest non-violently if you don't support BDS?
Tulsi: Well this is a movement I think, especially this legislation, is specifically talking about people here in the United States as a way for them to lodge their positions and protesting positions within our own government, which I support their right to do so. As we look to the negotiations that need to take place between the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli leadership I think that that negotiation process is ultimately what's going to be required to find a lasting peaceful resolution.
Dore: Right, but don't you think that - so because I think that, see I'm older than you so I actually remember apartheid South Africa and how they used divestment which was actually a good pressure point, so I think whatever is non-violent I'm okay for, but you support a two-state solution right?
Tulsi: I do.
Thanks for the transcript bro. Overall I dunno, seems like a fair enough response to me, she's saying that she doesn't like BDS but that she doesn't want to infringe on the rights of Americans to support it. I agree that it's definitely not a strong endorsement of Palestinian causes on her part, realistically you cannot oppose Israel and last in politics unless you have a very particular niche backing you (e.g. Omar elected in a Somali-American district). I wasn't aware that she was ever super pro-Palestine to begin with, simply a non-interventionist Democrat that would have been the norm in the 90s. Like, there's no real way to make any moves wrt Israel-Palestine without engaging them and pissing someone off, so a wish-washy ambivalence can help keep us away from that shithole.
People are making the mistake of assuming that she's some kind of Chomsky-ite anti-American-military leftist when she clearly isn't. I mean, on the Kurd issue she revealed herself to be more pro-intervention than Donald Trump, who of course has no problem stumping for foreign interests himself.
Fair, however my problem is that Dore asked her what is the alternative to BDS which she had no answer for, she didn't specify why she disagrees with BDS tactics which would have helped to make her answer seem less I dunno politically correct? Vague? PR statementish? And when Dore asked what would be Palestinians' non-violent alternative without BDS she acted like Dore was conflating Americans with Palestinians but what I thought he was asking was, without America putting pressure on Israel via BDS, what can Palestinians do besides use violence?
Wouldn't mind seeing @TechnicalBarbarity go up against this Iranian brute.
Bodybuilder dubbed 'Iranian Hulk' signs up to Bare-Knuckle Fighting Championship
As opposed to our incompetent criminal.
It's news to say that "conservatives are realistic" and "progressives are idealistic"? Both of which are only half true--i.e. alternative fax.
As long as he doesn't grapple this guy is no threat to Techbarb
While I know this looks Mort-thread worthy, this stuff is quite in the current news.
Well, neocons are idealistic and fly under the conservative banner so I'll grant you that. Progressives are only realistic (sometimes) when it hits them in their personal matters (especially in the pocketbook/career) or affects their personal progeny. Clear examples in NIMBYism and moving to the neighborhoods with "Good Schools" vs national and state level voting.
I also noticed, like pretty much everyone else, including Democratic senators and congressmen/women, that you offered no examples of Trump's many implied illegal activities. Kicking up a lot of dust, calling it smoke, and then claiming where there's smoke there's a fire, isn't evidence. This isn't about Trump directly, but this is generally the same when anyone actually is asked to list specific, codified illegal activities Trump has engaged in:
And that is a *prosecutor*.
In other news: Someone tell this Democratic Strategist that White Replacement is a NeoNazi, white supremacist conspiracy:
Maybe Vox's Beauchamp is up for it since he's trying to catch up to 2010:
So Democratic politicians, strategists, and social mediaites can gloat about the diminishing share of of the population of white Americans, but as soon as any white American mentions it as not something they approve of, that's "racist" and "white supremacist". Otay.
The problem is you're deciding the validity of evidence that's readily available--from Trump admitting to sexual harassment to allegedly using his charity for personal profit. The evidence is there; but that doesn't mean there are examples we can point to. You seem to be conflating evidence with proof; but proof very rarely exists. So instead, we have to judge the evidence. Maybe I inflate it, but you consistently deflate it, chalking it up to TDS. Somewhere in the middle is the plausibility that he's committed crimes--and not just one. I can't be impartial, but it's hard to see how the evidence doesn't suggest criminal behavior.
When did this happen?
The pussy-grabbing comment. That's what I mean by judging the evidence. Obviously this comment itself isn't an admission of a specific act of harassment, but a general comment that we might attribute to "locker room talk." But when you combine this kind of behavior with the fact that several women have accused him of sexual harassment, it becomes harder to believe that he hasn't done so.
So I'm choosing to believe that he's committed sexual harassment, based on what I've seen/read. I realize it's not proof, and I'm not saying there's a specific act on record.
Do any of the accusations of sexual harassment against Trump pre-date the "grab them by the pussy" audio leak?
The claims of sexual assault have generally been specific, and are not about Trump grabbing a woman's crotch after first meeting. One allegation was of rape from his first wife, one was a business client that claimed he cornered her in an empty office and iirc kissed her before she refused him, there was an Epstein rape allegation, etc. fwiw I think he probably has committed some form of sexual assault at some point, but I'd assume that most powerful men have (Reagan, HW, and Clinton have all been accused as well, the latter two even more credibly), and "grab em by the pussy" was clearly more banter and metaphor than a literal instruction.
Thanks for the clarification. Trump has mingled in corporate, political and entertainment circles too long to not have sexually harassed at least one woman in his life. Associations with Epstein and Weinstein for example.
I should be clear that I'm not saying that Trump has never done anything illegal. Everyone has done things that are illegal. That's a far cry from the constant harangue about his "impeachable offenses". Granting that he has likely engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault at one or more points in his life (although not with that batshit crazy woman E. Jean Carroll), those pre-date his presidency.