• 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

RJKarl said:
Posting anyone's job info on the board is supposed to be a permanent ban. At least that's MODs told me would be my punishment.
Click to expand...

RJ wrote a book about himself one time and is currently unemployed.

Am I banned now?
 
TownieDeac said:
I called it a sham lawsuit, but the larger point I'm making is that people should be allowed to challenge neolib/neocon orthodoxy about foreign intelligence and foreign affairs. I am no fan of Tulsi and don't find her positions on Russia or Syria persuasive at all, but for a former State Department official to call her a Russian asset is dangerous rhetoric with a chilling effect on free speech.

The reason I posted the link to the interview (and it's kinda long so I'll summarize the points) is to show exactly how dangerous that can be, as regards Kiriakou who the Obama admin had imprisoned for exposing the torture regime in spite of decades of CIA service. He does a good job too delineating that he doesn't believe there's such thing as a Deep State, but instead he says there's a very real federal bureaucracy that lasts longer than any one presidential tenure that pulls strings in the federal government. For that reason, it's important to be specific about what we say when we talk about agents of foreign states within our own government. Beto and Mayor Pete were both clear they disagreed with Clinton about Tulsi working, wittingly or unwittingly, on behalf of Russia's interests.

Trump is definitely a different story, and Kiriakou explains why he thinks Trump committed impeachable offenses but is clear that we as a country treat "whistleblowers" very differently depending on how it supports a given political agenda. I also found it enlightening about the kinds of networks that give Kiriakou a platform--he talks about being treated better on Tucker Carlson's show than on CNN or MSNBC. He's quite clear he's not a republican and never will be and does not agree with Carlson's politics. But if he challenges the way stories get reported or the war/oil state, he gets de-platformed regardless of his personal politics.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll try to find time listen to it. But it's hard to have any respect for someone who goes on Tucker's White Supremacy Hour, and tries to suck up to Trump for a pardon, telling Trump that he should investigate the CIA because the whistleblower complaint was too polished and pushed by a group within the CIA -- in other words, it's not a real whistleblower. That doesn't seem like someone, to me, that is seeking to protect whistleblowers, it seems like someone what wants to protect himself and suck up to Trump for a pardon.
 
TownieDeac said:
I called it a sham lawsuit, but the larger point I'm making is that people should be allowed to challenge neolib/neocon orthodoxy about foreign intelligence and foreign affairs. I am no fan of Tulsi and don't find her positions on Russia or Syria persuasive at all, but for a former State Department official to call her a Russian asset is dangerous rhetoric with a chilling effect on free speech.

The reason I posted the link to the interview (and it's kinda long so I'll summarize the points) is to show exactly how dangerous that can be, as regards Kiriakou who the Obama admin had imprisoned for exposing the torture regime in spite of decades of CIA service. He does a good job too delineating that he doesn't believe there's such thing as a Deep State, but instead he says there's a very real federal bureaucracy that lasts longer than any one presidential tenure that pulls strings in the federal government. For that reason, it's important to be specific about what we say when we talk about agents of foreign states within our own government. Beto and Mayor Pete were both clear they disagreed with Clinton about Tulsi working, wittingly or unwittingly, on behalf of Russia's interests.

Trump is definitely a different story, and Kiriakou explains why he thinks Trump committed impeachable offenses but is clear that we as a country treat "whistleblowers" very differently depending on how it supports a given political agenda. I also found it enlightening about the kinds of networks that give Kiriakou a platform--he talks about being treated better on Tucker Carlson's show than on CNN or MSNBC. He's quite clear he's not a republican and never will be and does not agree with Carlson's politics. But if he challenges the way stories get reported or the war/oil state, he gets de-platformed regardless of his personal politics.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched that particular episode, but that last point is interesting because I'm the last person to watch FoxNews, but I came across this Tucker Carlson clip talking about Iran that was more spot on than anything I've seen on CNN and MSNBC. Democrats are supposed to be the anti-war party, yet CNN and MSNBC seem to be pro-war at every opportunity, which isn't all that surprising when you consider they're sponsored by weapons manufacturers/Big Pharma. Again, when you have to go to FoxNews to get decent analysis, there's something gravely wrong with liberal MSM.

 
Last edited:
Shooshmoo said:
Thanks, I'll try to find time listen to it. But it's hard to have any respect for someone who goes on Tucker's White Supremacy Hour, and tries to suck up to Trump for a pardon, telling Trump that he should investigate the CIA because the whistleblower complaint was too polished and pushed by a group within the CIA -- in other words, it's not a real whistleblower. That doesn't seem like someone, to me, that is seeking to protect whistleblowers, it seems like someone what wants to protect himself and suck up to Trump for a pardon.
Click to expand...

He wants a pardon because he had almost $800k in pension taken as civil asset forfeiture when he was put in prison. And the way he describes it, they lessened the charges because they knew they wouldn’t stick but it basically came down to politics within the CIA and a personal disagreement with Brennan.

He goes over the legal definition of a whistleblower in the ep too, and makes clear the distinction. Basically only two people have ever been charged with espionage under this act, and they’re people who make the govt or intelligence service look bad. His argument is people should feel legally protected to blow the whistle, but that leaking secrets isn’t the same thing.

If any of that has muddied the waters on the original point, it’s still important that government officials aren’t incorrectly using terminology that implies or overtly assets a person is committing treason or espionage. Doesn’t seem like you’re much of a sympathetic ear, which is fine, I just thought I’d explain my perspective.
 
I'm here to take back my post from a few months back that I would vote for any Dem this year. Not voting for Bernie. Dude would destroy our economy.
 
Ugh “overtly asserts”*

Edit feature broken, cool typo
 
TownieDeac said:
He wants a pardon because he had almost $800k in pension taken as civil asset forfeiture when he was put in prison. And the way he describes it, they lessened the charges because they knew they wouldn’t stick but it basically came down to politics within the CIA and a personal disagreement with Brennan.

He goes over the legal definition of a whistleblower in the ep too, and makes clear the distinction. Basically only two people have ever been charged with espionage under this act, and they’re people who make the govt or intelligence service look bad. His argument is people should feel legally protected to blow the whistle, but that leaking secrets isn’t the same thing.

If any of that has muddied the waters on the original point, it’s still important that government officials aren’t incorrectly using terminology that implies or overtly assets a person is committing treason or espionage. Doesn’t seem like you’re much of a sympathetic ear, which is fine, I just thought I’d explain my perspective.
Click to expand...

I get your point and I agree with it. I've been pretty clear that Hillary should STFU and go away.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Bless your heart.
Click to expand...

Did you explain how Bernie would destroy the economy and it was basically wealthy people destroying the economy in fear?

It’s a weird fear.

Oh noes! The poors will have money and may be able to live without being indentured servants to the rich!

Oh noes! We will borrow money to pay for health care instead of killing Arabs!
 
South Park's SJW/PC Principal episode ruined like a generation of Barstool bros but their episode Margaritaville about The Economy still kills me today, and bozos like catamount who talk about it like it's some monster that needs to be worshipped always remind me of it. So many good bits.



 
Shooshmoo said:
I get your point and I agree with it. I've been pretty clear that Hillary should STFU and go away.
Click to expand...

While I generally agree with the Hillary should STFU and go away premise, is it possible that, instead of being petty and wanting to stay in the news, she may actually be taking 1 for the team? Again, don't mistake me as a fan of the Clintons - I'm just spitballing. We've heard rumbling from Obamaland that he would prefer to stay out of the primary process and remain above the fray. However, the 1 possible nominee he and his folks would have a difficult time stomaching is Sanders. While he had his differences with Warren (according to a Politico piece a while back), he could still support her nomination. Now that Sanders has had a bump in the polls, and Warren has receded a bit, a Sanders nomination is looking a bit more viable than it did 1-2 months ago. And if he had to start weighing in against Sanders, a rift could develop that could tear the party in 2 and re-elect Trump. So before risking such a schism, maybe his people are sending out a less popular but still well known Dem to make the point for them.
 
and i know we aren't supposed to go here because obama is popular, but bernie can just say hey i love obama he's great, but also i fought against him cutting social security and extending bush tax cuts and all the other things bernie was right about and obama was wrong about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top