Politics Fighting back! (1 Viewer)

[JfizzleBlazer]

Not based on AIPAC money. Just based on their support of Israel.

Also, Israel can pay politicians without using AIPAC. That's why focusing on Israel or AIPAC is just a distraction, IMO.


I would gladly vote for Ro Khanna over Newsom.

I was asking because there are things out there that claim Khanna has taken aipac money. He also read Dershowitz book and quoted it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I was asking because there are things out there that claim Khanna has taken aipac money. He also read Dershowitz book and quoted it.

His stances have been in line with what I expect. So I'm good.

He's also one of 7 members of Congress who publicly reject ALL money from special interests PACs outright. He doesn't accept any money from lobbyists.

I would need to some evidence to believe he is taking money from AIPAC.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

His stances have been in line with what I expect. So I'm good.

He's also one of 7 members of Congress who publicly reject ALL money from special interests PACs outright. He doesn't accept any money from lobbyists.

I would need to some evidence to believe he is taking money from AIPAC.

It could be false. Thats why i'm asking you where you get such info. I'm genuinely curious.

So far I disagree with you on the MTG and Tucker side of things.

Help me out on why you like this guy.

 

[Phatguysrule]

It could be false. Thats why i'm asking you where you get such info. I'm genuinely curious.

So far I disagree with you on the MTG and Tucker side of things.

Help me out on why you like this guy.

I'm not a huge Ro Khana guy. I'd just take him over these other candidates. I could definitely be swayed, but probably not by someone who accepts money from lobbyists.

He's just the most progressive candidate on this list, as far as I can tell.

 

[crandc]

Trump administration dropped their defense of lawsuit so, the rainbow flag is once again flying over Stonewall memorial.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I'm not a huge Ro Khana guy. I'd just take him over these other candidates. I could definitely be swayed, but probably not by someone who accepts money from lobbyists.

He's just the most progressive candidate on this list, as far as I can tell.

I went back and looked through MTG's positions. I just can't support a coalition with her and her stances. So many of them are so bad.

 

[crandc]

After FIFA invented a Peace prize to give Trump, the German men's team invented their own peace prize, and awarded it to owner of St. Paul bar that became organizing center for anti ICE protests in Minnesota.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I went back and looked through MTG's positions. I just can't support a coalition with her and her stances. So many of them are so bad.

I'm not suggesting you support MTG. That coalition has already gotten the law passed that requires the Epstein files be released.

I've see nothing that would suggest he wants anybody to support MTG or Tucker Carlson.

He simply reached across the isle to them because they were the ones who also supported going after the Epstein files.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I'm not suggesting you support MTG. That coalition has already gotten the law passed that requires the Epstein files be released.

I've see nothing that would suggest he wants anybody to support MTG or Tucker Carlson.

He simply reached across the isle to them because they were the ones who also supported going after the Epstein files.

He straight up said he wants to create a broad populist coalition with them. Lol.

I don't have any room for people with Tucker or MTGs track record. I don't trust them.

That doesnt mean I don't have room for change from some of those folks. Certainly not them. Or Kelly. Or Fuentes.

 

[Phatguysrule]

He straight up said he wants to create a broad populist coalition with them. Lol.

I don't have any room for people with Tucker or MTGs track record. I don't trust them.

That doesnt mean I don't have room for change from some of those folks. Certainly not them. Or Kelly. Or Fuentes.

I think that coalition would be a good thing, even if it included people like MTG and Tucker Carlson.

It would be much stronger and more persuasive than a coalition without their followers, wouldn't it?

*Edit* I'm not trying to convince you to support him, just following the conversation. MTG is stepping down. She's not going to have much power, so I'm not sure how trust matters. If a cause like this can collect her supporters I think that would be great.

And Carlson is just a means to an end. Communication with more people that he may not be able to without him.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I think that coalition would be a good thing, even if it included people like MTG and Tucker Carlson.

It would be much stronger and more persuasive than a coalition without their followers, wouldn't it?

*Edit* I'm not trying to convince you to support him, just following the conversation. MTG is stepping down. She's not going to have much power, so I'm not sure how trust matters. If a cause like this can collect her supporters I think that would be great.

And Carlson is just a means to an end. Communication with more people that he may not be able to without him.

We will just have to disagree here. I'm not for reaching across the aisle for those folks.

Massie, fine. Other republicans, sure. Tucker and MTG. No fucking way. A one off? Maybe. But not a coalition.

 

[Phatguysrule]

We will just have to disagree here. I'm not for reaching across the aisle for those folks.

Massie, fine. Other republicans, sure. Tucker and MTG. No fucking way. A one off? Maybe. But not a coalition.

I'm not sure if there are many more willing to address these issues.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I'm not sure if there are many more willing to address these issues.

And why do you think they claim to want to address these issues?

 

[Phatguysrule]

And why do you think they claim to want to address these issues?

Because that's what their constituents want. That's how they have any power at all. Especially MTG. Tucker Carlson has lost all if his other support.

They both have to cater to the people who want this done if they want to be relevant at all.

Most others are on the take and risk falling off the gravy train if they support going after the Epstein class.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Because that's what their constituents want. That's how they have any power at all. Especially MTG. Tucker Carlson has lost all if his other support.

They both have to cater to the people who want this done if they want to be relevant at all.

Most others are on the take and risk falling off the gravy train if they support going after the Epstein class.

MTG doesn't have any constituents. They say what people want to hear for clout, money etc. How many times did MTG make sales with insider knowledge? I don't believe they actually care about many of the things a progressive candidate generally cares about.

I don't buy it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

MTG doesn't have any constituents. They say what people want to hear for clout, money etc. How many times did MTG make sales with insider knowledge? I don't believe they actually care about many of the things a progressive candidate generally cares about.

I don't buy it.

It doesn't matter if they care about a progressive agenda right now, IMO.

What matters is if they care enough about the Epstein class to be useful at building support for getting lobbyist and foreign money out of politics.

I think they are both desperate to stay relevant and Ro Khanna was able to take advantage of their tenuous position.

That's just how I see it.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

I think they are both desperate to stay relevant and Ro Khanna was able to take advantage of their tenuous position.

Exactly why anyone should not trust them or do business with them. They have already proven to everyone who they are. It isn't a good look.

 

[crandc]

In one of his first acts, Hungary's new prime minister announced end to funding Conservative Political Action Committee. He said CPAC is welcome there but not at taxpayer expense.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Exactly why anyone should not trust them or do business with them. They have already proven to everyone who they are. It isn't a good look.

What I'm hearing you say is let the Epstein files remain hidden because you don't like the only other people who can apply pressure that also want them released.

Agree to disagree.

I'll gladly take the people who supported MTG because they want wealthy people held accountable for committing crimes. MTG is no longer relevant. Tucker Carlson is on his way down as well. Accepting their cast off supporters to build a stronger coalition makes sense.

And I would never use that as a reason to support somebody who didn't make that happen over somebody who did.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

What I'm hearing you say is let the Epstein files remain hidden because you don't like the only other people who can apply pressure that also want them released.

Agree to disagree.

Lol, yeah ok. You went for the low blow. Congrats.

Hope you have a great day.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Lol, yeah ok. You went for the low blow. Congrats.

Hope you have a great day.

How is that a low blow? How was that at all different from what you have said?

That's what I've been trying to ascertain... That is the one thing you keep coming back to.

Who else was he going to get to support going after these people? Everybody else is bought and paid for. That's why it has taken so long to get the files released.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

How is that a low blow? How was that at all different from what you have said?

That's what I've been trying to ascertain... That is the one thing you keep coming back to.

Who else was he going to get to support going after these people? Everybody else is bought and paid for. That's why it has taken so long to get the files released.

I havent once said that. You put those words in my mouth and went for the low blow. I've always been an advocate for getting epstein files released and even mentioned in this back and forth that it can make sense to get support on a one off. But that i wouldnt support a coalition.

What you did there was certainly not in good faith.

It is the same as if I said, well, you support the coalition so you must support white supremacy because of them.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I havent once said that. You put those words in my mouth and went for the low blow. I've always been an advocate for getting epstein files released and even mentioned in this back and forth that it can make sense to get support on a one off. But that i wouldnt support a coalition.

What you did there was certainly not in good faith.

It is the same as if I said, well, you support the coalition so you must support white supremacy because of them.

You haven't said that. That's why I phrased my sentence the way that I said it. You haven't said it, but that's what I keep hearing. I'm asking for clarification.

No, it's not the same at all. Because you would not have gotten the files released without their help. You will not be able to hold their feet to the fire If you don't have the largest coalition possible, and that's going to have to come from both sides.

There are still 3 million of the most telling Epstein files yet to be released.

But you are kind of implying (the white supremacy thing) by saying you wouldn't even accept MTG and Tucker camps in a coalition and you wouldn't support somebody who did. Why? Because anybody who accepts them are white supremacists? Or supporting white ssupremacism? You can't trust them for what? They're the most vocal advocates against the ultra wealthy.

Without MTG and Tucker Carlson making so much noise and applying that pressure from the right the files probably don't get released. They'd probably still be secret in some back room.

Makes no sense to me.

You are going to need people like that to rile up enough support against the Epstein class. You don't start fixing this country without them.

Education and progressive policies will eliminate white supremacy. But you're not going to get that if we don't get some power back from the elites. And we're not going to get that if we won't accept help from the most vocal on the right.

Refusing that coalition right now (or punishing the left for being a part of it) is cutting off our nose to spite our face. That is dooming us to lose to the elites and the further spread of the desperation, bigotry, and hate that racism requires to thrive.

I'm sorry if you consider that a low blow, It isn't intended to be. It's just the facts as I see them.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

No, it's not the same at all. Because you would not have gotten the files released without their help. You will not be able to hold their feet to the fire If you don't have the largest coalition possible, and that's going to have to come from both sides.

There are still 3 million of the most telling Epstein files yet to be released.

But you are kind of saying that by saying you wouldn't even accept their camps in a coalition and you wouldn't support somebody who did. Why? Because anybody who accepts them are white supremacists? Or supporting white ssupremacism? You can't trust them for what? They're the most vocal advocates against the ultra wealthy.

Without MTG and Tucker Carlson making so much noise and applying that pressure from the right the files probably don't get released. They'd probably still be secret in some back room.

Makes no sense to me.

You are going to need people like that to rile up enough support against the Epstein class. You don't start fixing this country without them.

Education and progressive policies will eliminate white supremacy. But you're not going to get that if we don't get some power back from the elites. And we're not going to get that if we won't accept help from the most vocal on the right.

Refusing that coalition right now (or punishing the left for being a part of it) is cutting off our nose to spite our face. That is dooming us to lose to the elites and the further spread of the desperation, bigotry, and hate that racism requires to thrive.

I'm sorry if you consider that a low blow, It isn't intended to be. It's just the facts as I see them.

Have a nice day. I'm just gonna go ahead and walk away instead of continuing to have you insinuate I support the epstein files not being released.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Have a nice day. I'm just gonna go ahead and walk away instead of continuing to have you insinuate I support the epstein files not being released.

3 million of the Epstein files are still not released. If I understand you correctly you are saying you cannot be associated with (or support anybody who is involved in) any coalition with MTG or Tucker Carlson (the most vocal people on the right, with the largest followings who want to get them released).

That does seem like a difficult position to be in.

I'm sorry if you can't understand my confusion with that position.

I'm sorry that you felt attacked. That wasn't my intention. I was simply trying to express my confusion with the things you are saying.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

3 million of the Epstein files are still not released. If I understand you correctly you are saying you cannot be associated with (or support anybody who is involved in) any coalition with MTG or Tucker Carlson (the most vocal people on the right, with the largest followings who want to get them released).

That does seem like a difficult position to be in.

I'm sorry if you can't understand my confusion with that position.

I'm sorry that you felt attacked. That wasn't my intention. I was simply trying to express my confusion with the things you are saying.

Have a good day sir.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Have a good day sir.

Thanks, you do the same.

 

[crandc]

I have been at this a long time. You unite with people around issues in which you agree to fight for a specific goal. You do this understanding you might be fighting against those same people on some other issue.
No way could any progressive firm a lasting political coalition with Marjorie Taylor Greene or trans phone Nancy Mace. Or with neocon Liz Chaney. But you form a temporary alliance for a given task. You don't endorse all their other views.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I have been at this a long time. You unite with people around issues in which you agree to fight for a specific goal. You do this understanding you might be fighting against those same people on some other issue.
No way could any progressive firm a lasting political coalition with Marjorie Taylor Greene or trans phone Nancy Mace. Or with neocon Liz Chaney. But you form a temporary alliance for a given task. You don't endorse all their other views.

Well said.

Unless enough people punish you for forming said temporary alliance ... Then you just get Red team vs Blue team.

Note: "Temporary alliance" is literally one definition of "coalition".