+10 credibility for pranking CPAC with Russian flags

2/24/2017 1:57:00 PM

i don't know who brought the flags, but loads of people there were happy to fly them

2/24/2017 1:57:50 PM

The GOP is so unfamiliar with Russia, they cant even spot the Russian flag when they see it.

Trump Russia Narrative debunked?

2/24/2017 2:06:44 PM

^^They probably had no clue what the Russian flag looked like. The people that go to these events are from the base - typically extreme in opinion and lacking in general knowledge.

^Eventually a staffer went around taking them back so someone clearly realized what was going on.

2/24/2017 2:15:19 PM

Guarantee you they were told it was the Israel flag.

2/24/2017 2:30:05 PM

JCE talking about this confirms he is a hack

2/24/2017 2:41:59 PM

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/02/prepare-for-the-centrist-gambit-at-the-dnc-race-if.html

pieces like this one are absolutely maddening

2/24/2017 3:25:54 PM

Would you care to expound?

I was bitching about Greenwald last page, but the reality is that frustration is mostly driven by his Russia-Trump coverage (when juxtaposed next to his Hillary-email coverage), but then I read that intercept piece (very similar to the one you're posting) and there is the completely unsubstantiated claim that Perez is some establishment robot that Hillary and Obama are secretly controlling from their private DNC control room.

Greenwald whines about a "Russian agent witch hunt" while not recognizing that he is participating in a conservadem witch hunt (but has even less evidence than what we currently know about Russia-Trump connections).

OK......

I like Ellison, actually more that Perez, its true.

But Perez was instrumental in getting that fiduciary rule EO through the legal system, those overtime pay rules, his labor department was one of the better ones in fighting wage theft overall, he enforced rules that helped workers unionize, and he did heaps of good while in Maryland related to employee misclassification.

Meanwhile Ellison has............
signed onto the credit card bill of rights and he endorsed Bernie first?

But because Perez served in the Obama administration and endorsed Hillary, he is suddenly a tainted conservadem, or corporate whore, or whatever? That seems like a step too far to me.

Look, Conservadems suck. I hate em as much as anybody and I absolutely believe they should be taking a back seat in the DNC after the Hillary Fiasco. But you aren't going to purge them from the party, the DNC has always been the bigger tent (in the modern era) and that ain't changing anytime soon (nor should it).

2/24/2017 4:58:28 PM

because treating this as something more than it actually is is absurd to me, and threatening to leave the party over it, considering the times, is even more absurd

now is not the time to freak out about the party going further left, regardless of who the chair is

Quote :

"But because Perez served in the Obama administration and endorsed Hillary, he is suddenly a tainted conservadem, or corporate whore, or whatever? That seems like a step too far to me. Look, Conservadems suck. I hate em as much as anybody and I absolutely believe they should be taking a back seat in the DNC after the Hillary Fiasco. But you aren't going to purge them from the party, the DNC has always been the bigger tent (in the modern era) and that ain't changing anytime soon (nor should it)."

I didn't have the time to type this out, but this is basically where I'm coming from. running away from a still very popular Obama administration.

[Edited on February 24, 2017 at 5:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2017 5:20:08 PM

Man...even the Democrats reject the crazy-uber-leftists in their own party, with the election of Perez.

2/25/2017 9:59:28 PM

Quote :

"JCE talking about this confirms he is a hack"

It's not a hack people.

It's a troll.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

2/25/2017 10:19:44 PM

DNC still digging that grave

Resources for Democratic socialists here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/5w64ha/slug/de7kj0s

[Edited on February 25, 2017 at 11:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2017 11:09:02 PM

The Democratic party is completely fucked.

Which is incredible considering the GOP and their current leader.


The current GOP is simply wayyyyy better at politics than the Dems. See: Gerrymandering, HB2 and Gorsuch. Hell those Democrat idiots were trying to ban corporate PAC money. It's great to have ideals and principles, but it's next level to have some fucking strategery to try and make that shit happen.

[Edited on February 26, 2017 at 1:29 AM. Reason : Pragmatism is pretty solid too. See: Ted Kennedy ]

2/26/2017 1:13:07 AM

I mean I'm completely indifferent to who leads the DNC. If you are good at organizing that is all that matters. It's a position people only care about because of the recent leaks more or less.

But it cracks me up that people think Perez isn't left enough just because Sanders supported someone else.

[Edited on February 26, 2017 at 6:27 AM. Reason : fwiw, I thought it was better having Ellison win and Perez deputy but who gives an f?]

2/26/2017 6:24:47 AM

Word on the street is that Perez was tapped because of the wish of a big party donor. Some billionaire donor close to the Obama/Clinton wing didn't like Ellison because of his views on Palestine.

So the fact that democrats are responding to the wishes of their donors over the wishes of their constituents should signal that the party is not interested in moving to the left.

2/26/2017 1:23:08 PM

I don't know the background of it but Perez's history isn't really right of center like an Obama/Clinton. He's a leftist but not as much as Ellison.

Again, I think Ellison was a better choice to move the party forward but the hysteria over it is absurd. He is absolutely a progressive and most importantly they will absolutely work together.

2/26/2017 5:47:40 PM

I'm not being hysterical. I'm not even discounting Perez's track record. But he was chosen by a billionaire Democratic Donor rather than the will of party members. That alone is indicative of deeper structural issues that the party seems unwilling to address.

2/26/2017 5:55:35 PM

^^^^^ your post made me immediately think of something I saw today that is absolutely fascinating but I caution to take it with some grain of salt. It's no secret the right has won the initial battle online but the extent that this reads is mind numbing. It's JCE's supposed leftwing narrative times ten.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage

[Edited on February 26, 2017 at 7:42 PM. Reason : X]

2/26/2017 7:42:13 PM

If I'm going to spend the rest of my life voting within a two-party system, I'd rather have one of the parties be moderate in nature than to have opposite ideologies that push the fringes of the political spectrum.

I'm probably also in the minority.

2/27/2017 7:43:08 AM

^i agree with you. now we're two.
https://youtu.be/1CxqYWi5vzc?t=74

[Edited on February 27, 2017 at 3:27 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on February 27, 2017 at 3:27 PM. Reason : a]

2/27/2017 3:26:52 PM

Yo, I heard Russia was involved in last night's Democratic Party Convention/Academy Awards Presentations.

#notmyoscarwinner

2/27/2017 3:44:26 PM

Democrats looked hilariously petulant last night.

Sorry...MORE petulant than they have since November 8th.

3/1/2017 11:14:27 AM

... how?

3/1/2017 11:16:08 AM

Quote :

"Yo, I heard Russia was involved in last night's Democratic Party Convention/Academy Awards Presentations. "

I'd certainly prefer they be involved in the Academy Awards rather than our presidential elections...

3/1/2017 11:19:08 AM

^^ you must not have been watching.

3/1/2017 11:38:09 AM

Didn't watch the entire speech but I don't recall Democrats reacting like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro

3/1/2017 12:02:26 PM

I mean, if your party is led by the guy who literally questioned the former president's legitimacy for six years, I'm pretty sure you've lost the moral high road to act indignant about some trivial nonsense.

3/1/2017 12:17:31 PM

i can't remember at what point i stopped watching, but i didn't see anyone acting petulant. what the hell is kdogg talking about, did something happen towards the end?

3/1/2017 12:38:50 PM

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/the-dnc-chair-race-was-decided-by-an-islamophobic.html

get the hell over yourselves, Bernie Bros

3/1/2017 1:06:56 PM

^^A member of the House from South Carolina shouted "You Lie" during Trump's speech. It was very petulant.





Wait, no. I'm thinking of something else.

3/1/2017 1:10:33 PM

i thought petulant was kind of a random word choice, who says petulant?

apparently loads of right-wing blogs used that word, kdogg posted that democrats were petulant because right wing blogs told him.

i googled "democrats petulant" to figure out what he was talking about and found a bunch of right wing blogs from last night. apparently the petulant thing they did was wear white and 2 people gave a thumbs down when he said he wanted to repeal ACA

[Edited on March 1, 2017 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2017 1:26:33 PM

gotta learn those SAT words some how.

3/1/2017 1:31:36 PM

Teleprompter Trump and applause for every completed sentence. yawn

I think the 2 minute applause was to trigger lefties

[Edited on March 1, 2017 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2017 1:51:04 PM

Didn't watch. I was too busy working and creating jobs.

3/1/2017 1:53:54 PM

LOL democrats are turning on democrats for the response to President Trumps address to the joint session of congress

sounds pretty petulant

3/1/2017 8:20:19 PM

additionally...What's with the Democratic women in Congress wearing white last night?

Didn't they say a Trump Presidency would roll back progress 50 years?

Fifty years ago, when Democrats wore white, it meant something totally different.

#forgottenlegacy

3/1/2017 8:39:21 PM

Lol, I came across the blog trying to link the women wearing white to kkk too

Hilarious, kdogg just copies blogs

3/1/2017 9:02:56 PM

There was actually a WaPo opinion piece today about how silly the KKK/Dem thing is. I think Lyin' Ted mentioned it recently.

I'm guessing Breitbart or GatewayPundit must've mentioned it.

3/1/2017 9:13:41 PM

I saw that too. So dumb.

We have the internet too dude!

3/1/2017 9:32:10 PM

You probably saw this one, then, also.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/03/01/president-trump-address-to-congress-stephen-lynch-massachusetts/

and this:
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/321727-media-left-and-right-give-trumps-speech-thumbs-up

and this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/ex-clinton-volunteer-slammed-loses-job-after-swipe-at-widow-fallen-seal.html

Dems are still in the forest...no idea what to do...SO SAD!

3/1/2017 10:08:00 PM

Despite Trump and congress, the democrats still couldn't find a way to win an 18-way race in Georgia. Definitely not a good sign for a party that is already on life support.

Also this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtiY_RuKzRc

4/19/2017 10:10:23 AM

Or, you know, a seat that should've been easily re-occupied by another Republican (because Georgia) is being forced into a run-off after a Democratic candidate came up just shy of the majority...even though there was a field of 18 candidates.

4/19/2017 10:47:22 AM

So it's been confirmed this guy ^^ is Earl (Eman)?

4/19/2017 11:54:06 AM

^^

4/19/2017 1:18:14 PM

Hey democrats: This is a question I really have never heard an answer to. The "purity test" myth about 3rd party voters is tired but no one ever defends the sheep reputation of democrats.

What would have to happen for you to

A. leave the party?
B. Vote against a democratic candidate?

My assumption is that most democrats are born into (identity politics) and have never thought about the option of voting for anyone else. They see the options as either abstaining or voting democrat. I also assume most of the democrats on this board have thought about it.

Lying under oath, fraud, and unfulfilled promises clearly have no impact. From my understanding, the only requiremnet is that they are less conservative than the GOP candidate. An extreme hypothetical is if someone just like Mccain ran as a blue dog democrat against someone like Trump or Pence.

5/5/2017 5:37:00 PM

I voted for Nader in 2004.

5/5/2017 6:56:54 PM

^^

I'd reckon that at least 75% (if not higher) of voters, regardless of political affiliation vote the way they vote because of their parents (upbringing, religion, etc.) or their friends.

Another 22% will tell you that they're capable of independent thought and that they consider the issues and the candidates. However, they lean one way or the other and will be rarely persuaded to lean the other way and vote differently, mainly because the ideologies between candidates are usually night and day, or at least they campaign to seem like polar opposites and the leap is too big a leap to make.

The last 3% (or less) will switch up their votes as they see fit, mainly because they're just tired of the system that's in place now and they want to break it.

To sum it up, if you took your question and replaced it with republicans, you'd still get crappy answers from both sides.

5/5/2017 9:19:02 PM

Quote :

"the sheep reputation of democrats"

<citation needed>

Quote :

"My assumption is that most democrats are born into (identity politics) and have never thought about the option of voting for anyone else"

Both of my parents voted for Trump last year.

Quote :

"Lying under oath, fraud, and unfulfilled promises clearly have no impact"

Does the Iran-Contra Affair, Jack Abramoff, and Donald Trump, respectively, have any impact on you?

Quote :

"From my understanding, the only requiremnet is that they are less conservative than the GOP candidate. An extreme hypothetical is if someone just like Mccain ran as a blue dog democrat against someone like Trump or Pence."

From my understanding, the only requiremnet is that they are less liberal than the DNC candidate. An extreme hypothetical is if someone just like Trump ran as a single-payer-loving conservative against someone like Clinton.


Honest question: how old are you?

5/6/2017 12:28:06 AM

Earl is far left. Not conservative. Also, he's trolling.

5/6/2017 8:29:15 AM

Quote :

"tulsigabbard: Hey democrats: This is a question I really have never heard an answer to. The "purity test" myth about 3rd party voters is tired but no one ever defends the sheep reputation of democrats. What would have to happen for you to A. leave the party? B. Vote against a democratic candidate? My assumption is that most democrats are born into (identity politics) and have never thought about the option of voting for anyone else. They see the options as either abstaining or voting democrat. I also assume most of the democrats on this board have thought about it. Lying under oath, fraud, and unfulfilled promises clearly have no impact. From my understanding, the only requiremnet is that they are less conservative than the GOP candidate. An extreme hypothetical is if someone just like Mccain ran as a blue dog democrat against someone like Trump or Pence."

?

We just watched a bunch of lifelong, union-card-carrying Democrats vote for Trump.

If anybody's guilty of "sheep-like" behavior, it's the Solid South.

5/6/2017 6:07:18 PM