The Democratic Party is Imploding

911

Peacock
Gold Member
^^^^ and Chelsea is full of shit of course, her mom is fanatically anti-Christian and into witchcraft, she was never going to be a Christian. We also know from her emails that she and her staff talk about sacrifying animals to moloch.

 

CynicalContrarian

Peacock
Gold Member
To be a 'fly on the walls' of D.C. these days...


Tensions flare as Dems struggle to calm furor over Omar

Lawmakers clashed behind closed doors, with some complaining that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team had failed to handle the escalating political crisis.

House Democratic leaders are struggling to contain the controversy over Rep. Ilhan Omar's comments about Israel, with the caucus fighting behind closed doors over whether — and how — to respond.
Tensions ran high at a caucus meeting Wednesday as some Democrats privately vented that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team had failed to adequately respond to the escalating political crisis, with too little outreach to their own rank and file.
Freshman Rep. Jahana Hayes of Connecticut stood up and confronted Pelosi directly, arguing that she shouldn’t have to learn about the official Democratic Caucus response from MSNBC. Hayes said she now has to vote on a resolution that she’s barely read, without a private briefing from leadership, according to five sources.
Pelosi countered that the Democratic measure to condemn anti-Semitism is not final, though text had been circulating and a vote had been tentatively planned for Wednesday. That vote was postponed amid a last-minute backlash from progressives in the caucus.
...
As Hayes was then talking to another member, Pelosi said, “Well if you're not going to listen to me, I’m done talking,” then set down the microphone and walked out of the room, the sources said.
...
Multiple other Democrats urged their colleagues to stay off Twitter — where some lawmakers, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Juan Vargas — sparred over the weekend.
Vargas wrote that “questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable,” to which Ocasio-Cortez responded: “I remember a time when it was ‘unacceptable’ to question the Iraq War.”
“What we need to do is not be out there twittering, we need to talk to each other,” Dingell said.


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/06/ilhan-omar-israel-democrats-1206740
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
Nonpareil said:


Okay.

With these deluded ultra leftists and their kids - why is it always 6 or less?

Example: 'My six year old daughter cried when Trump won because she thinks we're going to be deported!'

Or

'My three year old son is the biggest Kamala Harris fan out there and thinks she's the only chance to stop orange man!'

My nephew isnt even six he's almost eight and he (and his friends that I've met - and the kids not a dummy, he's an A or B student by whatever metric his school uses and asks a ton of good questions) know dick all about fuck anything aside from video games, what food they want to eat and some movies and music.

Why don't any of these insane leftists, or noted moron Chelsea Hubbell, ever say anything believable, like 'I made this choice when I was 11', or is that not sympathetic enough for the Democrat party who like children's supple young organs more than actual kids?
The extra dose of irony being that leftists degrade and deny any mental capacity of fetuses and babies, yet once they're born those babies grow frighteningly fast suddenly become able to change their gender and engage in political debates by 3 years old.
 

CynicalContrarian

Peacock
Gold Member
It used to be that sinister subversives were subtle.
They knew it was better to play the long game when it came to shifting the 'Overton window'.
The proverbial frog in a boiling pot idea.

Now, whether on purpose or whether this new millennial iteration of the sinister Soycialists (Justice Democrats et al.) are simply too impatient & too petulant to play long subtle games, we get to watch the old guard of the DNC fuss about.


Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) on how Democrats should respond to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) anti-Semitism: “This is not a conversation we ought to have…in the public” pic.twitter.com/BHG3mszkd3
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) March 7, 2019

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2...e-when-it-comes-to-confronting-bigotry-video/
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/07/top-democrat-tells-holocaust-survivors-check-privilege/

Democratic Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) defended his colleague Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) by reasoning that she is higher than Jews on the pyramid of intersectionality. In an interview with The Hill on Wednesday, Clyburn trivialized Holocaust survivors when he implied that Omar’s time in a Kenyan refugee camp outweighed the experiences of Jews.

Her experience, Clyburn argued, is much more empirical — and powerful — than that of people who are generations removed from the Holocaust, Japanese internment camps during World War II and the other violent episodes that have marked history.

“I’m serious about that. There are people who tell me, ‘Well, my parents are Holocaust survivors.’ ‘My parents did this.’ It’s more personal with her,” Clyburn said. “I’ve talked to her, and I can tell you she is living through a lot of pain.”

Clyburn is the third-highest ranking Democrat in the House, who has shared a stage with the notorious anti-semite Louis Farrakhan. According to Clyburn’s logic, it’s OK to hate Jews if you rank higher than them on the hierarchy of victimhood. Omar is a Muslim woman who was born in Somalia and had to flee violence in her country, so Democrats believe her hate speech should be excused, while Holocaust survivors should sit quiet.

Clyburn’s comments come during a fragmented week for Democrats, who failed to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism in the wake of Omar’s repeated anti-Semitic slurs. Clyburn, a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said he rejected the idea that the proposed resolution would single Omar out for condemnation.

“She won’t be targeted. We’re going to target those people who had her picture on the Twin Towers,” Clyburn said. “This resolution is going to be inclusive; it’s going to be expansive; and I might just try to add something to deal with that billboard that’s up in Pennsylvania this morning calling John Lewis and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus racists.”

As Washington Free Beacon writer Alex Griswold pointed out, it’s contradictory to say the resolution is “expansive” and not intended to go after Omar specifically, but to also say it’s going to “target” certain groups.
It's wonderful. The mob is turning on itself so fast. I just hope this doesn't peak too early.
 

CynicalContrarian

Peacock
Gold Member
Voxday :

What we're learning here is that the concepts of 4GW apply to rhetoric as well as war. "Racism" is effective because it is based on a perception of societally punching down. But Jews can no longer effectively play the victim game in a multiethnic empire where they are the most powerful identity group among the ruling elite. That is why the accusations of "anti-semitism" are still effective with white Baby Boomers but have no effect whatsoever on rival immigrant populations and younger US citizens.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/03/racism-and-rhetoric.html
 
I don't see imploding, I see a lot of energetic young politicians making names for themselves and changing the conversation.

I don't like Jihadi Omar, I think she and every other "refugee" in her home state need deported. But she just called out AIPAC and not only lived, but emerged even stronger from it.

Names like AOC, Yang, and now Omar are pushing forward new policies, changing opinions, and winning huge amounts of battlespace in the war for American minds. Outside Donald Trump, who are their republican party equivalents?

I am hugely into politics and can name exactly one young Republican politician, and that's Dan "I lost an eye in the middle east, and so should you!" Crenshaw. His big policy position is that we need an eternal war in the middle east to keep nebulous "terrorists" out of the homeland. What a bold, big idea. And beyond him, it's a total wasteland. I can't think of a single politican's name.
And the pundits are just as bad. What's Candice Owen's big idea? "Dems are the real racists?"

Where are the Republican ideas? Where are the people who are going to push them? We're about halfway through Trumpism, assuming he wins re-election, and not a single person has appeared to carry on the torch.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Nor will they.

The GOP is truly the party of bought-and-paid-for empty suits just like my Australian conservative party The LNP. They exist to quietly attend to the oligarchy's wishes and balance the budget (tax us to fuck) after the Democrats and Labour/Greens (respectively) spend up big to smash the cultural battering ram into the West for 8 years at a time.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face and then swapping with the boot on the other foot in 8 year shifts - forever.
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
Jesus Christ you guys are toxic. You're seriously reminding me of PUAhate right now in your attitude.

You really have no idea just how weak the leftist coalition is. And now, the mob is turning on itself.

Omar has no "ideas." None. Just the standard SJW nonsense. She just happens to not view Jews as a victim group but that's been happening for decades. And believe me she didn't emerge stronger from it. She just exposed the cracks in her coalition. You think that's going to get over with those older Jewish voters in south Florida? Gillum went somewhat the same route and look what happened to him.

Cortez does have some new stuff but it's crazy and never going to get over with the general public. In fact, most of the stuff the Democrats push is unpopular. Having "ideas" doesn't mean shit unless there's a market for them.

In the midterms, the most "progressive" candidates almost always lost. The people that won those GOP districts were by and large middle of the road traditional Democrats. The Cortez-Omar wing of the party cannot win in red or purple states.

Candace isn't so much an innovator as she is a seller. She's making the old "Dems are the real racists" cool in ways other people have failed to do because they suck at communicating and don't even try to speak to that community. And it's a wise move. Trump won 8% of the black vote last time. Increase that by 4 points and it's mathematically impossible for Democrats to win. They know this which is why they constantly have to bring up identity politics and try to create the victim/oppressor dialectic. With Trump's approval rate among minorities getting stronger, we may be seeing results.

But I know everything here will be met with some snarky response right now so whatever.
 

ChicagoFire

Kingfisher
Internet =/= real life

The Democrat party is split. Whoever is selected as the nominee will leave the rest of the factions butthurt and pulling another Bernie 2.0. None of the moderate/classic liberals are going to support Occasionally Coherent or her camel fucking counterpart.

Conversely even as "reasonable" as Yang is (I don't agree with him on UBI as that's prevalent in our society in other ways) he has no cool or masculine factor to him. You vote for Obama because he's cool, you vote for Trump because he was the maverick that was supposed to tear everything up with decades of being branded as a rich tycoon. Besides he looks to be about 5'9'' in this picture with him next to Obama who's 6'1''. I couldn't even find information about his height. Voters will just make up some excuse about not voting for him when in reality it's a mix of things.

https://nextshark.com/andrew-yang-first-asian-president/

I still standby my prediction that Trump will win reelection. He isn't perfect but given his track record, a weak Democrat party, and incumbency he should win. Maybe he will start to accelerate his agenda or maybe he really has thrown in the towel.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
Libertas said:
Trump won 8% of the black vote last time. Increase that by 4 points and it's mathematically impossible for Democrats to win.
...
But I know everything here will be met with some snarky response right now so whatever.
Well let me indulge you, since I keep hearing that "if Trump gets X% of the black vote it's mathematically impossible for Democrats to win", which honestly sounds like a bunch of Q-anon fantasies.

First of all, African Americans are only 12.6% of USA population. If you have 8% of their votes, that means you have 1.008% of the overall vote. If that share increased to having 12% of their votes, then you would have a staggering 1.512% of the overall vote for a total increase of 0.504% nationwide. Half a percentage point. That's less than a statistical error!

Secondly, African Americans are not a monolithic block whose votes are better than others. African Americans are distributed in a specific pattern throughout USA, and many of them are stuck in either Democrat (Washington D.C.) or Republican (Mississippi) strongholds where such an increase will have no effect whatsoever. Only a few (North Carolina, Virginia) are actual battleground states, but even there African Americans are just 20-25% of the population. That means that increasing the voter share from 8% to 12% will increase the overall result in that state by an incredible... 1%. Again, it's less than a statistical error.

Thirdly, if we're throwing out such projections, then we have to assume that it works both ways. We can also say, "If Cuckerberg manages to censor enough Facebook accounts to reduce Trump's white vote by 2%, it's mathematically impossible for Republicans to win". We can make predictions such as "If a fake hate crime against Latino immigrants reduces Trump's Latino vote by 4%, it's mathematically impossible for Republicans to win". In other words, there are millions of possibilities out there and we have no way of knowing which of them will actually happen and what their effect will be.

Conclusion: It's absurd to claim that any single political event makes any result "mathematically impossible"; in fact, the phrase "mathematically impossible" is so cringeworthy that it ought to be banned.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Libertas said:
Jesus Christ you guys are toxic. You're seriously reminding me of PUAhate right now in your attitude.

You really have no idea just how weak the leftist coalition is. And now, the mob is turning on itself.

Omar has no "ideas." None. Just the standard SJW nonsense. She just happens to not view Jews as a victim group but that's been happening for decades. And believe me she didn't emerge stronger from it. She just exposed the cracks in her coalition. You think that's going to get over with those older Jewish voters in south Florida? Gillum went somewhat the same route and look what happened to him.

Cortez does have some new stuff but it's crazy and never going to get over with the general public. In fact, most of the stuff the Democrats push is unpopular. Having "ideas" doesn't mean shit unless there's a market for them.

In the midterms, the most "progressive" candidates almost always lost. The people that won those GOP districts were by and large middle of the road traditional Democrats. The Cortez-Omar wing of the party cannot win in red or purple states.

Candace isn't so much an innovator as she is a seller. She's making the old "Dems are the real racists" cool in ways other people have failed to do because they suck at communicating and don't even try to speak to that community. And it's a wise move. Trump won 8% of the black vote last time. Increase that by 4 points and it's mathematically impossible for Democrats to win. They know this which is why they constantly have to bring up identity politics and try to create the victim/oppressor dialectic. With Trump's approval rate among minorities getting stronger, we may be seeing results.

But I know everything here will be met with some snarky response right now so whatever.

What's toxic here is the kind of manipulative articles like the one above from the Federalist, a cuckservative equivalent of HuffPost, telling us that pointing out that Capitol Hill is zionist occupied territory amounts to "hating Jews".

The Federalist is run by Ben Domenech, whose chunky hubby Meghan McCain literally sobbed on The View because Omar is such a horrible antisemite, bawling about how she feared for the Jews, thus preserving the long-standing family tradition of shilling for Israel. Grandpa John McCain Sr. covered up for the massacre of unarmed US sailors in Our Greatest Ally's assault on the USS Liberty.

It's not about "ideas" with Omar, it's about having a member of the House that dares to touch the Third Rail of Capitol Hill as zionist occupied territory, something which no member of the House has even dared come close in decades.

The great majority of Black Americans will side with Omar here, they will view Candace as a token uncle Tom figure, hating on their oppressed sista. It's silly to expect any traction from this amng Blacks. That's why Pelosi has been trying to limit the Omar bashing in her ranks.

Candace is more about making cuck Boomers feel good about themselves, than about reaching minorities, same with Malkin. She's not looking to convert any of her brothers and sisters to the cause here, she's only zio-virtue signaling for shekels.

And Jewish voters aren't going to switch to Trump, only 19% voted for him in 2016, they will vote again en masse against the tiki-torch white supremascists in the red hats, no amount of Trump moving embassies is going to change that.
 
Top