• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

WFcatamount22 said:
Saying Israel has the US hypnotized is not legitimate criticism PH, I know you know that.
Click to expand...

You don’t think Israel has an undue influence on US foreign policy?
 
Strickland33 said:
And that equation IS anti-Semitic. I’m not the expert on irony, but that does seem more appropriate. Whatamount is too far gone to realize that; racism sucks when it’s against or benefits his team (political, racial, ethnic, etc.). What a joke.
Click to expand...

Here is the correct take, from someone looking past tribalism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/opinion/ilhan-omar-israel-jews.html

The Jewish power to hypnotize the world, as Ms. Omar put it, is the plot of Jud Süss — the most successful Nazi film ever made. In the film, produced by Joseph Goebbels himself, Josef Süss Oppenheimer, an 18th-century religious Jew, emerges from the ghetto, makes himself over as an assimilated man, and rises to become the treasurer to the Duke of Württemberg. Silly duke: Allowing a single Jew into his city leads to death and destruction.
Click to expand...
 
Strickland33 said:
I’m Jewish, man. Omar’s comments weren’t anti-Semitic. Y’all - not Jews - lectured me about how I was wrong and don’t know what I was talking about.

I have been the victim of anti-semitism more times than I can count (and definitely more times than the histrionic ADT and our resident concern trolls like DistrictDeac). Most of it, but not all of it came from well-meaning Christians in NC. What’s outrageous is that the same folks who shit their pants over SJP/JVP, critiques of Israel, and Ilhan Omar just don’t appear to give a shit about actual anti-semitism (like it’s literal definition).
Click to expand...

If you have an issue with me or my posts, don’t bury it in the middle of an unrelated thread. Be a man and respond directly instead of just throwing around nonsensical labels.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
If you have an issue with me or my posts, don’t bury it in the middle of an unrelated thread. Be a man and respond directly instead of just throwing around nonsensical labels.
Click to expand...

I don’t have an issue with you or your posts. I think that you’re a concern troll given your selective outrage on the Tunnels.
 
The triumph of Nigel Farage and his Brexit party in Britain’s European parliamentary elections tells us two stories at the same time.
The first story is a local British story. The Brexit Party’s victory effectively ends the Conservative party’s monopoly on Britain’s political right for the first time in two hundred years. The Conservatives will respond to the trouncing in one of two ways. They can disintegrate completely by doubling down on outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May’s soft Brexit – with or without a second referendum — or they can start listening to their voters.

The second story encapsulated in Brexit’s victory — and that of Marine Le Pen’s triumph in France and Matteo Salvini’s in Italy — is the now familiar tale of the rise of the populist/nationalist/ideological right throughout the Western world against the conventional wisdom of the traditional progressive and center-right elitist establishment, and more often than not, in defiance of the polls.

Breitbart TV



Play Video
CLICK TO PLAY

Exclusive: Papadopoulos Says Schiff, Dems, Putting 'Their Personal Interests Ahead of the Country'


In Britain itself, the rise of Brexit is a fitting bookend to Prime Minister Theresa May’s stunning betrayal of her voters. May came to power after her predecessor David Cameron resigned office in response to the Brexit vote. As she entered office, May pledged to embrace the will of the voters and shepherd Britain out of the European Union.

Instead of doing so, May managed to negotiate a Brexit deal with the European Union that left Britain with the costs of EU membership but without its benefits. Despite the fact that her deal was repeatedly voted down in Parliament, she refused to resign. And now, her premiership that began because of Brexit is ending because she betrayed Brexit.

As for the wider West, to be sure, the proximate issues pushing voters in separate countries to cast their ballots for anti-elitist parties in favor of populist, nationalist leaders with strong visions of national restoration and pride are local. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s victory earlier this month over his challenger, Labor Party leader Bill Shorten, has largely been attributed to Shorten’s radical economic agenda. Shorten’s proposed tax hikes would have harmed young families and retirees. His carbon emissions legislation would have crippled Australia’s mining industry.

Farage’s rise owes to May’s bad faith with her own voters regarding her commitment to honoring their vote to withdraw Britain from the European Union.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won a fifth term in office last month by running on a record of diplomatic and economic success that the leftist parties were unable to discredit.

Trump’s victory is widely attributed to Hillary Clinton’s failure to rally the Democratic base in the Rust Belt and to counter Trump’s message of industrial renewal.

But one underlying issue is common in all of the elections. And until the progressive left and the establishment center right reconcile themselves to it, and find a respectful means to contend with it, they will continue to see populist forces grow stronger and win elections.

That issue is contempt. Throughout the Western world, beyond the economic issues and even beyond specific social issues like gay marriage or abortion rights, voters are motivated to vote for the populist, nationalist right in part due to their anger at the left and center-right’s undisguised contempt for them.

In the United States, the left’s snobbery reached its height with Hillary Clinton’s castigation of Trump’s supporters as “deplorables.” But her assertion wasn’t made in isolation. It was made in the midst of a general atmosphere in which Democratic politicians from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi and establishment Republicans felt comfortable putting down Americans who aren’t part of their club. Obama infamously referred to Clinton’s “deplorables” as “bitter” people in small towns who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The media, which serves as an extension of the Democratic Party and embraces NeverTrump Republicans as a means to attack Trump and his voters, continuously broadcasts contempt for both.

Likewise, according to Australian professor and media analyst Stan Grant, one of the decisive factors in Australia’s election was religion. A large swathe of the public developed a sense that Labor leader Shorten held them and their religious convictions in contempt.

Grant recalls that in the weeks before the election, a national rugby star — who, like Morrison, is an evangelical Christian — wrote a disparaging post about homosexuals on his Facebook page. Whereas Morrison responded by drawing a line between his political actions and his religious beliefs to neutralize the issue, Shorten’s response was to castigate Morrison.

According to Grant, “Shorten’s move raised red flags in the minds of many voters. Just what did he stand for? Did he value the rights of the LGBTQ community not to be offended over the rights of someone to publicly profess their religious beliefs?

Grant added that Shorten’s response came the same week he “had given a rousing speech pledging to ‘change the nation forever.’”

It works out that while Australians do not oppose gay marriage, they don’t want their country to be fundamentally transformed. However they come down on social issues, they want Australia to stay Australia.

By adopting an attitude of contempt for them, Shorten, like Clinton and Obama and May and French President Emmanuel Macron insulted the voters.

Since the 1990s, we have been told that globalization is a progressive, post-nationalist movement. And it is true that many of the radical agendas the left has adopted in the past twenty years have been initiated in one country and spread worldwide through various connectors, most notably, social media.

On the left, the international academic community and the transnational business elite have embraced similar values and agendas. These values and agendas have become the calling cards of members of the international ruling elite. And these values and agendas have drifted farther and farther away from those of the denizens of the elitists’ home countries and societies.

The rise of the populist/nationalist/ideological right throughout the West demonstrates that globalization cuts both ways. Members of the global progressive and center-right elite embrace the same post-nationalist, post-industrial, and post-Christian values and agendas at elite conferences in Brussels and New York, at the United Nations, on network news and online. But back in their home countries, those they disregard are also online and also talking. The disregarded majorities are also listening to one another.

The most potent message that crosses the world each day and empowers populists and nationalist conservatives is one of exasperation and anger at the transnational elites’ solidarity in their contempt for their people. From Jerusalem to Budapest to Birmingham to Cincinnati, the spurned citizens have understood that the only way to force their contemptuous elites to heel is to vote them out of power.

For European Unionists and British Remainers, for the Israeli elite and the American establishment, the globalization of their values and agendas has brought them to believe that democracy means fixing the rules of the game. Through judicial activism and bureaucratic regulations, through intellectual terror and public shaming, these elites seek to render election results inconsequential. Ballot boxes, in their view, are no match for the combined forces of the elite media and academia and the bureaucracy. They determine norms. They determine policies – in the name of Democracy.

But throughout the West, the “deplorables” are listening to one another and rediscovering their power and voices at the ballot boxes. They realize that democracy is a means for the people to determine their course in the world. The elite may control the discourse, but the people decide who will run their countries.

True, specific voting issues vary from country to country. But the voters’ refusal to accept the contempt with which their elites’ treat them unifies voters throughout the Western world. And so long as the elites refuse to accept that the traditional values and agendas of their societies are not fascist and racist, but conventional and even commendable, they will continue to misread polling data. They will continue to ignore voters. And they will continue to be blindsided by electoral defeats that they never expected.
Click to expand...



https://www.breitbart.com/europe/20...the-common-denominator-in-populist-victories/
 
Lol I’m “histrionic,” that’s a new one. I’ll add it to my list of ‘adjectives I never thought would be used to describe me.’
 
Haven't been around the last few days. Going back a few pages, looks like I missed nothing except ADT is now unhinged and histrionic and that if you don't like Bernie, it's not because you disagree with his politics, it's because you're an anti-semite. Carry on.
 
cville deac said:
Haven't been around the last few days. Going back a few pages, looks like I missed nothing except ADT is now unhinged and histrionic and that if you don't like Bernie, it's not because you disagree with his politics, it's because you're an anti-semite. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension isn't your thing, is it?

The Politico article featured money trees in a piece that suggested Bernie is an old Jewish miser (and hypocrite for being rich with an economic justice platform). A few months ago, the board went nuts over Ilhan Omar using the words "hypnotize" and "Benjamins" to describe the Israel lobby. Liberal and conservative rushed to condemn. IAT did a wonderful job of explaining how the comments were in poor taste and not anti-Semitic, but the rest of the board that weighed in has more or less been silent after this.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bernie Sanders. He's #4 on my personal preference list for many of those reasons. You should be able to disagree with Bernie Sanders without resorting to blatant anti-Semitic tropes. Since everybody was so quick to condemn Omar, I was expecting a similar moment of solidarity. Alas... I suppose anti-Semitism is only offensive to those who aren't affected by it when it serves their political interests. That's sad, at least to me.
 
If you want to blame somebody for the Bernie cheap characterization, then blame the economic aide in his administration.

He was, said Bruce Seifer, a friend of Sanders, an economic aide in his administration and one of many people who know him who told me this, “frugal.” Seifer paused and considered the right way to put it. “That’s a nice way of saying he’s a cheap son of a bitch.”

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]Honestly, Bernie being frugal is a checkmark on the positive for me.
Strickland, you have a remarkable ability of alienating people who probably agree with you on many things.

[/FONT]​
 
Strickland33 said:
I don’t have an issue with you or your posts. I think that you’re a concern troll given your selective outrage on the Tunnels.
Click to expand...

If selective outrage means that I don’t feel that the issue du jour is always worth getting hysterical about, then guilty as charged I guess.
 
ChrisL68 said:
If you want to blame somebody for the Bernie cheap characterization, then blame the economic aide in his administration.

He was, said Bruce Seifer, a friend of Sanders, an economic aide in his administration and one of many people who know him who told me this, “frugal.” Seifer paused and considered the right way to put it. “That’s a nice way of saying he’s a cheap son of a bitch.”

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]Honestly, Bernie being frugal is a checkmark on the positive for me.
Strickland, you have a remarkable ability of alienating people who probably agree with you on many things.

[/FONT]​
Click to expand...

90
 
The money tree is the obvious problem, but what's with the beach house?
 
Obviously trying to insinuate that he has a WASPy background by showing he resides in Cape style home instead of a yurt in Burlington, Vermont, complete with several rescue goats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top