US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[helios]

[Optimus]

No, that is dumb as fuck. He wouldn't have anywhere near the following if the Democratic Party hadn't let him run in their primary when he wasn't even a member. Now he's going to be petty like this while at the same time making demands of the party and trying to be one of its leaders?

He doesn't owe shit to these corporate shills. It's a warning that if they don't reform the party they won't have his support which they desperately need.

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457

      

THE CAPS LOCKS LETS YOU KNOW HE'S SRS!

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/829846842150096896

[FStop7]

Eh, I don't see where Yas Queen has a lot of room to talk about taking Ls.

[archie4208]

Born too late to explore the earth
Born too early to explore the universe
Born just in time to see politicians shitpost on Twitter

[FStop7]

Bernie can do what he wants but it's worth noting that it was his people who were caught stealing data from Hillary's mailing list within the DNC.

[Optimus]

No, that is dumb as fuck. He wouldn't have anywhere near the following if the Democratic Party hadn't let him run in their primary when he wasn't even a member. Now he's going to be petty like this while at the same time making demands of the party and trying to be one of its leaders?

He doesn't owe shit to these corporate shills. It's a warning that if they don't reform the party they won't have his support which they desperately need.

Reform the party how? What are his demands, and are they reasonable demands to make of a party he was only a part of for one year while they let him run in their primary, especially when he was a complete nobody before that primary?

They let him run for primary? How generous!

Good luck winning any election from now on without leftist Democrats. I and many others like me sure won't be blackmailed into voting for your corporate shills again, I sure didn't during this election and I regret nothing. I'd rather have Trump that can be easily opposed and sabotaged than a charismatic scumbag like Obama liberals will follow and defend blindly. I'd rather have chaos than organized and carefully managed neoliberalism which is what the sellouts you're supporting offer.

[Joe Molotov]

No, that is dumb as fuck. He wouldn't have anywhere near the following if the Democratic Party hadn't let him run in their primary when he wasn't even a member. Now he's going to be petty like this while at the same time making demands of the party and trying to be one of its leaders?

He doesn't owe shit to these corporate shills. It's a warning that if they don't reform the party they won't have his support which they desperately need.

Reform the party how? What are his demands, and are they reasonable demands to make of a party he was only a part of for one year while they let him run in their primary, especially when he was a complete nobody before that primary?

End White Genocide.

[Optimus]

They let him run for primary? How generous!

Good luck winning any election from now on without leftist Democrats. I and many others like me sure won't be blackmailed into voting for your corporate shills again, I sure didn't during this election and I regret nothing. I'd rather have Trump that can be easily opposed and sabotaged than a charismatic scumbag like Obama liberals will follow and defend blindly. I'd rather have chaos than organized and carefully managed neoliberalism which is what the sellouts you're supporting offer.

If you're a good example of the average Bernie voter, then it is going to be hard winning any election from now on since a large percentage of our hypothetical coalition is basically insane.

If you think four years of protests, angry facebook posts and sabotage (what does this even mean? We couldn't even sabotage the DeVos or Sessions nominations) is better than actually having the power to enact liberal policy, you've really gone off the deep end.

*neoliberal policy

[Optimus]

Can we establish what you're using as the definition of neoliberalism?

No, we have done that a million times. But since I was talking about chaos vs organized neoliberalism let me give you another example of vast liberal hypocrisy. Obama's DoED has been privatizing education for years, promoting charter schools and destroying public education. After years of pathetic apathy liberals suddenly care about the privatization of public education. Organizations related and unrelated to public education are ready to oppose Devos and her plans to, you know, continue Obama's legacy. So yeah, between the two incredibly shitty options I choose the second, not because I think things will get better but because at least we're building worthy opposition which hopefully will survive after the Trump fiasco and not be co-opted by the fucking Democrats.

[Nola]

Did either of you even bother to read article from Mother Jones?

I don't know why I am asking, you all wouldn't be engaging in this bizarre Freudian analysis if you had. The article isn't even really about Sanders. The Times just selectively quoted and used a clickbait headline.

Sanders, for his part, has mostly stayed quiet about the future of the list, which one Democratic consultant referred to as his "precious." He told the Washington Post in January that he would "cross that bridge" when he comes to it. "There has been no discussion with the DNC about use of the list," says Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs.

But former Sanders staffers and consultants scoff at the demand for the list. The way they see it, clamoring for access misses the point. The list wasn't the campaign's secret weapon; Sanders was.

"They keep thinking it's the list," says Becky Bond, who as a senior adviser to Sanders helped build the candidate's national organizing operation. "It's so crazy. It's like someone who buys a $12,000 bicycle and thinks they can win the Tour de France."

Detaching Sanders' list from his message, Sanders backers argue, would diminish what made it so valuable. "Bernie Sanders' list isn't an ATM machine and just handing it over to the DNC might raise a little bit of money, but it won't produce a fraction of what it's capable of,"

The fear among Sanders alums isn't just that the DNC can't recreate the magic. It's that the party will sap his supporters' energy with the kinds of gimmicky pitches the Sanders campaign swore off.

Still, these Sanders staffers don't think the DNC is a lost cause. They just think the solution is for the party to build its own Bernie list. It would require whoever takes over the DNC to be transparent with supporters about where the party was getting its money and what its goals were. And it would require some concrete structural changes within the organization—for instance, by prohibiting donations from lobbyists, as Ellison has proposed.

So far, the leading candidates for DNC chair have both hinted at a more Sanderseque approach to fundraising.

I feel like I am reading a GAF thread. An article says one thing but people start arguing like it reads something else.

[Optimus]

Did either of you even bother to read article from Mother Jones?

I don't know why I am asking, you all wouldn't be engaging in this bizarre Freudian analysis if you had. The article isn't even really about Sanders. The Times just selectively quoted and used a clickbait headline.

Sanders, for his part, has mostly stayed quiet about the future of the list, which one Democratic consultant referred to as his "precious." He told the Washington Post in January that he would "cross that bridge" when he comes to it. "There has been no discussion with the DNC about use of the list," says Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs.

But former Sanders staffers and consultants scoff at the demand for the list. The way they see it, clamoring for access misses the point. The list wasn't the campaign's secret weapon; Sanders was.

"They keep thinking it's the list," says Becky Bond, who as a senior adviser to Sanders helped build the candidate's national organizing operation. "It's so crazy. It's like someone who buys a $12,000 bicycle and thinks they can win the Tour de France."

Detaching Sanders' list from his message, Sanders backers argue, would diminish what made it so valuable. "Bernie Sanders' list isn't an ATM machine and just handing it over to the DNC might raise a little bit of money, but it won't produce a fraction of what it's capable of,"

The fear among Sanders alums isn't just that the DNC can't recreate the magic. It's that the party will sap his supporters' energy with the kinds of gimmicky pitches the Sanders campaign swore off.

Still, these Sanders staffers don't think the DNC is a lost cause. They just think the solution is for the party to build its own Bernie list. It would require whoever takes over the DNC to be transparent with supporters about where the party was getting its money and what its goals were. And it would require some concrete structural changes within the organization—for instance, by prohibiting donations from lobbyists, as Ellison has proposed.

So far, the leading candidates for DNC chair have both hinted at a more Sanderseque approach to fundraising.

I feel like I am reading a GAF thread. An article says one thing but people start arguing like it reads something else.

Are we reading the same article? Both sides are being diplomatic about it but the fact is that the DNC wants the list and the Sanders campaign hasn't given it.

[Nola]

Are we reading the same article? Both sides are being diplomatic about it but the fact is that the DNC wants the list and the Sanders campaign hasn't given it.

And from there you both decide to go into these absurd psychoanalyses about Sanders lol. Which is in no way borne out in this article.

He isn't using the list as a threat. As the article said, he is just being quiet until that bridge is ready to be crossed.

Nothing wrong with speculation its just a bit bizarre when that speculation gets defended with such hostility haha.

[Kara]

Demanding people define neoliberal is a very en vogue tactic by people who have no economic dimension to their politics, and for the ones that do have one, it can be distilled down to that overused  two panel comic with the house on fire and the dog inside saying everything is fine.

[Nola]

Demanding people define neoliberal is a very en vogue tactic by people who have no economic dimension to their politics, and for the ones that do have one, it can be distilled down to that overused  two panel comic with the house on fire and the dog inside saying everything is fine.

              

[Mandark]

Demanding people define neoliberal is a very en vogue tactic by people who have no economic dimension to their politics, and for the ones that do have one, it can be distilled down to that overused  two panel comic with the house on fire and the dog inside saying everything is fine.

I mean, it's more polite than rolling your eyes and making a jerking-off motion, which is my first instinct when I read that term these days.

[Kara]

Saying I read Jacobin is just downright hurtful.

[Optimus]

Demanding people define neoliberal is a very en vogue tactic by people who have no economic dimension to their politics, and for the ones that do have one, it can be distilled down to that overused  two panel comic with the house on fire and the dog inside saying everything is fine.

...

I'm sure this post makes perfect sense in Jacobin-speak, or to an accountant, but I'll be damned if I have the slightest idea what you mean.

He's saying more discreetly something dickish posters like me would describe as something like this: "Demanding people define neoliberal is a very popular talking point for the politically uneducated who only care about identity politics (see: Gaffers) or for the politically educated who like to pretend their party isn't a fucking disaster full of corporate shills".

Well, you asked.

To make it perfectly clear, the tactic of asking "what neoliberalism is", is a very well-known talking point/derailing strategy being spammed for years now especially in establishment Democrat hugboxes like neogaf. At some point we must stop indulging you you know. Did you see me asking what liberal means? No, we both pretty much have an idea and you sure have about neoliberalism.

Are we reading the same article? Both sides are being diplomatic about it but the fact is that the DNC wants the list and the Sanders campaign hasn't given it.

And from there you both decide to go into these absurd psychoanalyses about Sanders lol. Which is in no way borne out in this article.

He isn't using the list as a threat. As the article said, he is just being quiet until that bridge is ready to be crossed.

Nothing wrong with speculation its just a bit bizarre when that speculation gets defended with such hostility haha.

No, I think it's you who refuses to see what's happening here. The Democrats are desperate for the list, the fact that Sanders hasn't given it yet is an action in itself.

[Nola]

I refuse to see speculation that reads like wishful thinking as fact, that is correct.

[Optimus]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

[VomKriege]

POTUS and K.Conway (from the White House) hawking Ivanka businesses is 
Fictional banana republic tier.

[james]

So basically the Hillary playbook of having no plans but just going with "I am not that other guy"

I am sure that this time around it will work. Why bother having an actual plans for anything when the opponent is the Devil.

It works though.

No one gives half a shit about policy.

No one.

It is ALL about personality.

Why did Scott Brown beat Martha Choakley?

Personality.

Why do MA and MD have R governors?

Personality.

Why does WV sometimes elect Democrats?

Personality.

You have people who voted for a "WE MUST CUT THE BUDGET DEFICIT" house rep at the same time they checked off "WE MUST SPEND $1T ON INFRA, BUILD A WALL, BEEF UP THE BUDGET, AND SLASH TAXES"

Biden would have destroyed Trump.

Here is how the Democrats need to select candidates:

Would the average person want to have a beer with the candidate?
If yes -> Run
If no -> DO NOT RUN

Lets try it with candidates!

Would the average person want to have a beer with Clinton or Dole?
CLINTON WINS

Would the average person want to have a beer with Bush or Gore?
BUSH WINS

Would the average person want to have a beer with Trump or Hillary?
TRUMP WINS

Would the average person want to have a beer with Obama or Romney?
OBAMA WINS

That. Is. It.

[PlayDat]

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830054159885934593

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830061711755341825

Hold on, what's wrong with Jacobin?

[james]

Here is how the Democrats need to select candidates:

Would the average person want to have a beer with the candidate?
If yes -> Run
If no -> DO NOT RUN

Did Democratic voters just not want to have a beer with Bernie then? Unless by "Democrats" you mean "Democratic voters", "Democrats" shouldn't be selecting any candidate, and they don't. The party does not pick the candidate.

What you're essentially saying is that everyone who votes in the primary should vote solely based on some kind of meta-game where they try to figure out who everyone else would want to have a beer with. That's not going to work. People vote in the primary for the candidate they want.

Also, Trump doesn't drink.

People who vote in primaries are more engaged, more educated. So yes, they care more about policy. But they're a minority. Thats why most people dont vote in primaries, they dont give a shit.

So my point is focused on the general election, which is when most people tune in.

But yes, primary voters should take that into account.

If Warren wins the 2020 primary, then Democrats lose, period. NOBODY wants to have a beer with Warren.

Cruz would have lost against Hillary because nobody wants to have a beer with him.

[Brehvolution]

Voters also say that Saturday Night Live has more credibility than Trump, 48/43

[studyguy]

https://twitter.com/XGroverX/status/829818984094654465

 

[Phoenix Dark]

Isn't PPP a troll poll org...

#fakepolls

[james]

Dude, I'm not voting for my second, third or even fourth choice primary candidate based on an unscientific beer theory. Is there even any methodologically-sound beer polling? Is there any beer polling at all? And in the absence of any rigorous beer polling, the only beer opinion I can really know is my own. I don't even like Sanders personality-wise. My own opinion is that he's a surly, bloviating pompous windbag, and I wouldn't be particularly eager to have a beer with him, whereas I'd drink with Clinton all night. But I'm supposed to pick him based on reddit pundits? Plus, if I think a candidate's policies would put us in a legit recession if fully implemented, I'm not giving him my vote because he fires up the college crowd.

Tell you what, get PPP, Quinn, Gallup, Morning Consult, and all the rest to conduct methodologically-sound beer polling for 2020, and I might consider it (probably still wouldn't though).

Im curious why youre bringing Bernie into this.

I said Biden, not Bernie.

Bernie is an angry old jewish grandfather. On the beer test, no, that doesnt play well in Michigan either. Better than Hillary, most likely, but maybe not enough to beat Trump.

Biden would have run away with it.

And there is rigorous beer polling. Look for the "candidate understands people like me" question.

Academics would look at the question and read "which candidate better understands how international trade policies impact job opportunities in Scranton"

People answering the phone from an unknown phone number think "which candidate would most likely have a spontaneous conversation with me about the Giants while having a beer at the corner bar"

BUT WAIT. Trump doesnt go to dive bars. Trump doesnt drink. Trump probably doesnt follow the NFL. So how does it fit in?

If both candidates fail the "beer and football" test you move on to the next test

"which candidate would laugh at my joke about two negros and a muslim walking into a bar"

Ah yes, he understands people like me!

[james]

Biden didn't run, so primary voters could hardly select him.

The issue starts with the DNC and their plan for a Hillary coronation.

As I said, "Here is how the Democrats need to select candidates"

Well, the selection process starts behind the scene. People run and withdraw not based on the voters, but based on what the party and funders want.

See: The upcoming NJ governors race

[Phoenix Dark]

ATTN BENJI
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/justin-amash-town-hall-obamacare-234886


that's our boy

[agrajag]

I'd drink with Clinton all night.

yass queen bless

[Raist]

I'd drink with Clinton all night.

Blood, amirite?

[Nola]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

You use a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.

I don't think I have ever heard you articulate an actual point A to point B to point C policy.

You bitch and moan about things like the TPP and NAFTA and then never bother to articulate what the ideal solution is? Trump is not for chaos for instance. He has in fact articulated his position. He thinks(I think wrongly so) that he can get better economic returns negotiating dozens of separate bi-lateral trade agreements over something like the TPP.

What is your position on that? Do you agre? Do you disagree? Why? If you prefer neither. Why? And why would your alternative be superior?

In all your ramblings I have yet to hear concrete ideas of how things should be done better or why Trump is superior to Obama in his economic ideas.

[VomKriege]

[james]

During a closed-door meeting with a group of senators from both parties on Thursday, Trump digressed from a planned discussion of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to talk about the elections, arguing that he and Ayotte both should have won the vote in New Hampshire, according to Politico.

According to Trump, Ayotte's reelection bid was foiled by “thousands” of people from Massachusetts illegally casting ballots in the Granite State, meeting participants told Politico. One source said that the room fell silent after the remark.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/318986-trump-ayotte-would-have-won-reelection-if-not-for-voter-fraud

 

17th dimensional chess

[james]

 

US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier

 

CNN Exclusive
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

Reached for comment this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, "We continue to be disgusted by CNN's fake news reporting."

Spicer later called back and said, "This is more fake news. It is about time CNN focused on the success the President has had bringing back jobs, protecting the nation, and strengthening relationships with Japan and other nations. The President won the election because of his vision and message for the nation."

 

[Joe Molotov]

If CNN reported on Trump's successes, wouldn't it be fake news, retroactively turning them into failures?

[brawndolicious]

Dubya was not a drinker but he had that appeal of being somebody you didn't think could talk down to you. Mostly because everyone kept on making fun of him. Trump is the same and also an angry entitled asshole who constantly sees himself as weak and fears nothing more than a woman or minority being better at his job than he could.

This should go in the unpopular opinions thread but the best thing right now is for Hillary to not go hide in a hole. She shouldn't attack him but just politely ask things like "Would you be willing to drop some the sanctions against Russia if they returned all of the Crimea territory back to Ukraine?" or any other extremely basic and specific questions that don't have a partisan answer.

The reason Hillary or any other high profile Democrat should do this is because Trump wants to just be viewed as someone liberals hate. The worst thing he can do is give an answer that would make Hillary go "oh that's good" while resulting in Putin having lost lives and money over absolutely nothing. Take a lesson from 2001-2008, getting angry at conservatives just scares them into thinking they're right.

[etiolate]

I don't think Hill has any political moves left. Losing to Trump is like losing an all-in at the Go Fish table.

[james]

Dubya was not a drinker but he had that appeal of being somebody you didn't think could talk down to you. Mostly because everyone kept on making fun of him. Trump is the same and also an angry entitled asshole who constantly sees himself as weak and fears nothing more than a woman or minority being better at his job than he could.

Thats a good point. These populations rally against "ivory tower liberals"  and "elite media" because they hate feeling stupid.

I mean they are stupid, but they are terrified to death of being exposed as such.

Its like that plane comic with the guy saying the pilots are out of touch.

I don't think Hill has any political moves left. Losing to Trump is like losing an all-in at the Go Fish table.

She'd do well as a Twitter troll, in the vain as her 3-0 post.

[recursivelyenumerable]

(Image removed from quote.)

Our nation is out of GDI resources ... accurate

Trump is the sort of guy I'd sit as far as possible away from at a bar.

[etiolate]

Dubya was not a drinker but he had that appeal of being somebody you didn't think could talk down to you. Mostly because everyone kept on making fun of him. Trump is the same and also an angry entitled asshole who constantly sees himself as weak and fears nothing more than a woman or minority being better at his job than he could.

Thats a good point. These populations rally against "ivory tower liberals"  and "elite media" because they hate feeling stupid.

I mean they are stupid, but they are terrified to death of being exposed as such.

Its like that plane comic with the guy saying the pilots are out of touch.

I don't think Hill has any political moves left. Losing to Trump is like losing an all-in at the Go Fish table.

She'd do well as a Twitter troll, in the vain as her 3-0 post.

They don't fear being seen as stupid. They know full well that they are seen as stupid. They also see a press proclaim Hill the winner via polling and then get everything wrong.

It is essential "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining".

The issue being there is no "smart people". Only proud stupidity vs the stupidity of hubris. Most voters/people are outside of both and just picking a side that disgusts them less.

[Phoenix Dark]

I don't think Hill has any political moves left. Losing to Trump is like losing an all-in at the Go Fish table.

And the Clinton brand is finished too. So much of their influence revolved around the assumption that she'd be president one day. Now that the dream is dead I suspect the Foundation, Chelsea, etc will fade.

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/xeni/status/830195497998643200

They couldn't have timed this better 

[Great Rumbler]

Dude would have been pardoned by now if he'd just gone to jail instead of Russia.

[Take My Breh Away]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/830200565720346624

And Snowden's response.

Just never mind that some of Trumps Russian Dossier has been confirmed. This thread is about to go gold again

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/830200771316703234 

[Rufus]

Dude would have been pardoned by now if he'd just gone to jail instead of Russia.

I'm pretty sure he cited Chelsea Manning's case as to why he didn't believe that.

[Great Rumbler]

Chelsea Manning got pardoned, though?

[Rufus]

But still in prison, no?

[Mupepe]

But still in prison, no?

Until May 17th

[Raist]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/830200565720346624

And Snowden's response.

Just never mind that some of Trumps Russian Dossier has been confirmed. This thread is about to go gold again

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/status/830200771316703234

Heh? The CNN article said it had nothing to do with Trump.

[FStop7]

All those PoliGAF YAS QUEENers wanting a whistleblower put to death because he didn't YAS QUEEN hard enough.

[curly]

Chelsea Manning got pardoned, though?

And also tried to kill herself twice while in prison (and got more time in solitary for doing so)

[studyguy]

Look all I know is Snowden dipped out and got stuck in Russia.

If you're stuck in a country where the leader takes political opponents out on the regular, my first thought would be to get the fuck out of there because chances are good I'm gonna end up dead too. Fast forward to now, what was the real endgame people expected. The US was never gonna allow this dude back in with open arms. BUH BU BHUH MUH JUSTICE!

Yeah well a fat lot of good that does you when the entire country's federal government thinks you're a criminal. Guy should have smuggled himself out of Russia when he had the chance or just turned himself in. There's no way this would have ended in a winning situation stuck with Putin and Russia vouching for you.

Yeah no shit Manning had shit treatment, the entire government hated her. No shit Snowden would have had a shit trial, the government hates him too.
Now dude's gonna be paraded around DC for shits and giggles by Trump with Pompeo asking for his head on a platter.

2017 is some rough shit.

[the freakin woz]

Look all I know is Snowden dipped out and got stuck in Russia.

If you're stuck in a country where the leader takes political opponents out on the regular, my first thought would be to get the fuck out of there because chances are good I'm gonna end up dead too. Fast forward to now, what was the real endgame people expected. The US was never gonna allow this dude back in with open arms. BUH BU BHUH MUH JUSTICE!

Yeah well a fat lot of good that does you when the entire country's federal government thinks you're a criminal. Guy should have smuggled himself out of Russia when he had the chance or just turned himself in. There's no way this would have ended in a winning situation stuck with Putin and Russia vouching for you.

Yeah no shit Manning had shit treatment, the entire government hated her. No shit Snowden would have had a shit trial, the government hates him too.
Now dude's gonna be paraded around DC for shits and giggles by Trump with Pompeo asking for his head on a platter.

he was on his way to cuba but his passport got revoked

[Joe Molotov]

F5ing pornhub to see if the piss tape is up yet

[studyguy]

Look all I know is Snowden dipped out and got stuck in Russia.

If you're stuck in a country where the leader takes political opponents out on the regular, my first thought would be to get the fuck out of there because chances are good I'm gonna end up dead too. Fast forward to now, what was the real endgame people expected. The US was never gonna allow this dude back in with open arms. BUH BU BHUH MUH JUSTICE!

Yeah well a fat lot of good that does you when the entire country's federal government thinks you're a criminal. Guy should have smuggled himself out of Russia when he had the chance or just turned himself in. There's no way this would have ended in a winning situation stuck with Putin and Russia vouching for you.

Yeah no shit Manning had shit treatment, the entire government hated her. No shit Snowden would have had a shit trial, the government hates him too.
Now dude's gonna be paraded around DC for shits and giggles by Trump with Pompeo asking for his head on a platter.

he was on his way to cuba but his passport got revoked

Well aware that's why I said got stuck. The whole Russian traitor bit some people angle is smoke. All the same getting stuck for a layover in Russia is a bad deal as any.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Another week survived
Just 205 more to go.

[Boogie]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/830200565720346624

And Snowden's response.

Define "cooperated."  Because I seem to recall you letting yourself get paraded out for some Q&A session with Dear Leader Putin on occasion....

edit:  Also, "no country trades away spies"

Ummmm.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glienicke_Bridge#Bridge_of_Spies

2nd edit:  I will grant you that those exchanges are of captured enemy spies, not a country giving up their "own" spies, however.  I'm going to dig through some of my Intelligence history books, see if there's precedent for such a scenario.

I will say, "spy" is a vague term.  Tends to be used in the public sphere to refer to both intelligence officers, as well as informants/assets.   As much as protecting informants is paramount, the two are not equal in how they are valued/protected.  Even in the most conspiratorial light, Snowden would be in the latter category.

[Optimus]

I'm asking because if Barack Obama is being described as a neoliberal, then the term has become so broad as to lose all practical meaning. At that point it has to include just about everyone on the ideological scale between socialism and libertarianism.

He's open to free trade deals, thinks we could lower the corporate tax rate, and isn't entirely resistant to a more expanded role for charter schools. Okay. He also raised taxes on the wealthy, gave us a huge Medicaid expansion that would be much larger if not for the 2012 Supreme Court decision, gave lower income people subsidies to buy health insurance, pushed for pretty massive direct government action to increase employment with his 2011 Jobs Bill that Boehner & friends refused to even bring to the floor, gave us the CFPB, the Credit Card Users Bill of Rights, net neutrality, public clean energy investment, tried to raise the minimum wage but was blocked, and in general does a whole lot of things that a neoliberal wouldn't do unless the definition of neoliberal includes everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders.

I'd also add that pushing for policies that have a chance in hell of passing does not make one a corporate whore. The 60th Democratic-caucusing senator in 2009 thought a fucking public option was too far left for him. And you're mad Obama didn't go for single-payer.

Purity tests are gross and completely unproductive.

No, he gave HMOs subsidies to continue screwing the American people. His jobs initiatives created part-time wage slaves and as per usual he used republicans as scapegoats to blame for everything that was too left for him. He sure didn't have a problem using the full power of the executive branch to push for neoliberal legislation but EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. legislation was too leftist he seemed almost incompetent. Gee, what a coincidence. And like I said, Democrats are careful managers of neoliberalism, their bosses need the middle class to remain stupid, subservient, to the brink of poverty but still existing because they don't want to lose their dumb consumers either or have a revolution on their hands (not talking about a violent one). So yeah, there are slight changes in taxation or the pathetic Dodd-Frank legislation that barely keep the economy stable so that they keep managing the clusterfuck.

Οn the other hand there's Trump. The establishment was clearly terrified of him even though he's their was creation. Why? Because he's a clown that will use the same policies but without restriction or careful management of the system. At this point things have become so bad that many on the left including me would rather take the chaos the idiot will bring which will lead to change than 8 more years of Democrat scumbags managing neoliberalism.

Fucking where? I'm a pretty active forums/comments sections guy, and I have never seen this derailing strategy.

Fucking everywhere. I've been asked this goddamn question a million fucking times by liberals that fit your profile perfectly.

You use a lot of words to say pretty much nothing.

I don't think I have ever heard you articulate an actual point A to point B to point C policy.

You bitch and moan about things like the TPP and NAFTA and then never bother to articulate what the ideal solution is? Trump is not for chaos for instance. He has in fact articulated his position. He thinks(I think wrongly so) that he can get better economic returns negotiating dozens of separate bi-lateral trade agreements over something like the TPP.

What is your position on that? Do you agre? Do you disagree? Why? If you prefer neither. Why? And why would your alternative be superior?

In all your ramblings I have yet to hear concrete ideas of how things should be done better or why Trump is superior to Obama in his economic ideas.

Jesus Christ Nola, asking to be more specific? Again? How more specific can I get? The ideal solution to TPP and NAFTA is not have those. Trump is an idiot, my prediction is that what he'll do for the country is create chaos and he already started to. My hope is that he'll ruin NAFTA which I doubt he'll be able to renegotiate again, as for TPP good luck restarting those negotiations all over again. It won't happen, it's over, I'm 100% sure about that. The alternative is superior because like I said a million times to posts you already replied to, free trade deals always, ALWAYS hit the middle class hard while benefiting only corporations, banks and the rich who own them.