What's new
By:

2020 Presidential election

Jonah said:
Of course it would have been clear to support the Sandinistas over Somoza and against the Contra counter-revolution. But that was 30 years ago. Since then the FSLN has fragmented numerous times and Sandinismo is no longer recognizable. Daniel Ortega has become what he was fighting against, a corrupt politician and virtual dictator.
Click to expand...

Agreed with this, if I saw Sanders/anyone offering more recent support/praise for Ortega and his groups I would be much more troubled.
 
One Brow said:
It's even more fun reading you write revisionist history of this conversation. Go on, find any quote in this thread where I denied the contras were worse. I'll wait. You'll fail, and because you're not mature enough to acknowledge that failure, you'll make up something else instead, or just stick to this same lie, or just disappear.



I never made an equivalence between them, outside of saying that I didn't support either side. Go on, try to find where I did. When you fail, you won't have the maturity to acknowledge it, unfortunately.



Should we ignore your support of cold-blooded killers and oppressors of minorities and the press, because they are not as cold-blooded and oppressive as some other group?



No one asked you to apologize, and I would never expect you to apologize. You seem to feel justified in your lying, and I expect nothing else.

Nor did I criticize your personhood, just your take that "less bad" = "good". By contrast, the actual name calling has been on your part. I suppose it is always easier to see our faults in other people.

I want to thank you for copying in all the posts you were discussing following this. Now, please point out the passage that equates to me denying the contras were worse, or making an equivalence between the contras and Sandinistas.

The part you really object to is, AFACT, saying the contras being worse doesn't make the Sandinistas good. I mean, if you take just a moment to think about the implications of "So, that makes supporting the Sandinistas good?", that is already acknowledging they are less bad than the contras; how else could they be considered good by comparison? You've engaged in an extended pout because you failed to see the implied comparison.

For emphasis, no one is expecting you to apologize. My expectation is that you will try to justify yourself with another self-righteous post. I look forward to it.
Click to expand...

America is supporting the Contras. Neutrality means supporting the contras. Was it wrong for Bernie to support the Sandinistas— yes, or no?
 
sirkickyass said:
How old is dalamon?

From the times I sail on through these here parts of the interwebs his default mode seems to be "pointlessly antagonistic to everyone - especially natural allies"
Click to expand...
One Brow said:
He was medical school 5-6 years ago, IIRC. Maybe he's exhausted from residency?
Click to expand...


Still not done. In my late 20s. And I don’t consider mayor Pete supporters to be allied to causes that benefit working people. AOC was right— in any other country, the left wouldn’t need to share a party with the DNC
 
dalamon said:
America is supporting the Contras. Neutrality means supporting the contras. Was it wrong for Bernie to support the Sandinistas— yes, or no?
Click to expand...

1) I agree with the notion that neutrality normally means supporting the people in power, and that would have been the Sandinistas for most of the 1980s.
2) As I read sirkickyass's point, it was not that Sanders was wrong to support the Sandanistas, but that it would be a political liability in Presidential campaign. Perhaps I read it wrong.
3) If you believe that, regardless of sides, you must choose a side, then Sanders was certainly chose the correct side in the Sandinistas.

My questions for you:
1) I acknowledge that I have no idea there are current contras. Did you mean America was supporting them, or that America is currently supporting other groups? Seeing the contras actually had the presidency for a while, are any current groups really their descendants?
2) Do you think there would no effect on Sanders appeal to the general populace/independents/etc. if it were played out in tens of thousands of commercials that he supported the Sandanists?
3) Are there any sort of conflicts where not supporting one side or the other is an ethical choice to you?
 
dalamon said:
Still not done. In my late 20s. And I don’t consider mayor Pete supporters to be allied to causes that benefit working people. AOC was right— in any other country, the left wouldn’t need to share a party with the DNC
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. He may have been talking about me rather than himself.
 
I see why trumps “me me me” communication style works for some people who need a strong man POTUS so that they feel more secure.

I can’t help but wonder if this backfires for coronavirus. Will some of his supporters begin questioning him? Always making it all about how awesome he is. In this context the lack of concern, empathy, and maturity really sticks out like a sore thumb.
 
@dalamon Have you ever heard the saying "The Great is the enemy of the Good."

I think you could look at some of your arguments and ask yourself if you're sacrificing a possible good because nothing but greatness is acceptable to you.
 
This is why he’s losing. This is exactly why his base isn’t expanding. He’s taking a page from Trump’s book and bullshitting in an attempt to compensate for his own lack of popularity:



It wasn’t the establishment who ended Amy and Pete. They no longer saw a path to victory and dropped out. Which is what primaries are supposed to do. Sanders angrily making war on everyone else is such a turn off. He’s alienating even those who could be his allies. People who actually agree a lot with him.

He really shouldn’t be the face or voice of progressivism in America.
 
Bernie Bros attacking AOC for liking Warren’s SNL skit is peak Bernie Bros. That’s exactly why they’re losing. I don’t want to empower these assholes. I don’t need to trade right wing trump for left wing trump.
 
Political Jazz Fan said:
I agree Joe!

Click to expand...


Donald Trump retweeted an edited version of Biden's remarks. As one would expect, his followers, members of the Cult of Trump, let it go right over their heads....

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-donald-trump-mistake-gaffe-endorsement-twitter-speech-1491104

Donald Trump retweeted an edited video of Joe Biden seemingly endorsing Trump for president, and responded with "I agree with Joe!"

In a speech in Kansas City, former vice president Biden said, "We can only re-elect Donald Trump if, in fact, we get engaged in this circular firing squad here."

However, Dan Scavino, Assistant to the President and Director of Social Media at the White House, tweeted an edited and misleading video of Biden that showed him saying: "We can only re-elect Donald Trump."

Scavino also called Biden "Sleepy Joe," which is the President's nickname for Biden. Trump then retweeted the edited video, agreeing with Biden's alleged endorsement.
 
fishonjazz said:
Trump is a child

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I think every parent on this site can agree that if their child behaved like Trump, they would be in serious trouble.

Lying, bullying, mocking, bragging, throwing tantrums, victim mentality, persecution complex, not taking responsibility for your actions, blaming others, racism......

Seriously, to even the trump supporters out there, you agree, right?
 


Donald just retweeted this tweet made by his social media manager. Is it a reference to Nero? Are his followers really this stupid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top