sbenois said:
nohero said:Just put some marinara sauce on it.
paulsurovell said:I can't even begin to untangle that, so won't bother.
………..
Or mustard.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this.
paulsurovell said:Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.
South_Mountaineer said:Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?
paulsurovell said:Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers.
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur
Snopes is not supposed to talk about subjective things like "pandering." They are supposed to stick to the facts. Another reason Snopes is fact check for lightweights.
sbenois said:
Is that the album with Vladi Don't Lose That Number?
I have never met Vladimir
But I plan to find the time
I think the only Vladimir influence for Steely Dan was Nabokov, not the election infiltrator.
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:Snopes is not supposed to talk about subjective things like "pandering." They are supposed to stick to the facts. Another reason Snopes is fact check for lightweights.
nan said:In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this.
paulsurovell said:Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.
South_Mountaineer said:Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?
paulsurovell said:Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers.
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur
Snopes is fact check for lightweights only in the eyes of people who look under every rock for conspiracy theories. So when these people don't get the answer they are looking for, they denigrate Snopes. Makes sense.
This is what should be happening to all Democrats who colluded with Trump on the obscene "defense" bill, squandering massive resources needed for human needs and to fight climate change
sbenois said:
nan said:Snopes is fact check for lightweights only in the eyes of people who look under every rock for conspiracy theories. So when these people don't get the answer they are looking for, they denigrate Snopes. Makes sense.
South_Mountaineer said:Snopes is not supposed to talk about subjective things like "pandering." They are supposed to stick to the facts. Another reason Snopes is fact check for lightweights.
nan said:In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this.
paulsurovell said:Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.
South_Mountaineer said:Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?
paulsurovell said:Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers.
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur
Nothing in Snopes contradicts Jill Stein's support for vaccinations and her concern about undo influence on the FDA by corporate lobbyists. If there's any "pandering" it's to all Americans because those positions are good for the whole country.
sbenois said:
nan said:Snopes is fact check for lightweights only in the eyes of people who look under every rock for conspiracy theories. So when these people don't get the answer they are looking for, they denigrate Snopes. Makes sense.
South_Mountaineer said:Snopes is not supposed to talk about subjective things like "pandering." They are supposed to stick to the facts. Another reason Snopes is fact check for lightweights.
nan said:In response to Nan/Paul, even the Snopes article notes the pandering. Call it a "dog whistle" if you like. Google "Jill Stein Autism" to see more about this.
paulsurovell said:Right, standing up to corporate lobbyists is "pandering" to nohero/South_Mountineer.
South_Mountaineer said:Because she called for less influence over the FDA by corporate lobbyists?
paulsurovell said:Jill Stein did pander to the anti-vaxxers.
Another MSNBC host Jill Stein slur
Snopes agreed with me on this one, and you believe Snopes so I guess you believe FAKE NEWS!
paulsurovell said:
This is what should be happening to all Democrats who colluded with Trump on the obscene "defense" bill, squandering massive resources needed for human needs and to fight climate change
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/04/adam-smith-sarah-smith-military-affairs-challenged-over-pro-war-votes-support-from-defense-lobby/
Please tell us what other bill was available for Dems to vote on which would address your concerns for human needs, et al.
nan said:
gerritn said:You think Jill Stein or Julian Assange made up that that JIll Stein is a Russian spy for Putin?????? Like, are you not embarrassed to say something that crazy? Where is the evidence for this? Why do you just state obvious BS without evidence? If you are coming to conclusions like this, you probably need new news sources too. Definitely.
Red_Barchetta said:It sounds like something that Jill Klein or Assange made up on behalf of Putin. There are always people that are yelling the skies are falling. It's mostly noise.
nan said:What's neoliberal austerity? Serious question.
No because of years of neoliberal austerity...
Chill. If you had read my previous post you would have read that I do not believe at al Jill Stein is a Russian spy. She was clearly played by putin with this moscow trip/dinner thing, but I do not believe bad intent on her part, just naivete. Assange is a bit of a different case I am afraid. He clearly interfered with our elections for one thing, and he should be brought to justice for that. I think you could argue Jill Stein interfered in our elections too, but like I said it was out of ignorance, not because she was a bad actor.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:Please tell us what other bill was available for Dems to vote on which would address your concerns for human needs, et al.
This is what should be happening to all Democrats who colluded with Trump on the obscene "defense" bill, squandering massive resources needed for human needs and to fight climate change
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/04/adam-smith-sarah-smith-military-affairs-challenged-over-pro-war-votes-support-from-defense-lobby/
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4759148/bernie-sanders-speech-defense-bill-june-12-2018
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s987/BILLS-115s987is.pdf
Good description of defense bill here.
Here's an interview with Sarah Smith, the Democratic antiwar candidate mentioned above:
Part of the reason we as a species are at an historic low point for deaths in wars is linked to our massively outspending everyone else on the military and associated R&D (science, NASA, etc.), which makes war unthinkable. The downside is less money for domestic spending. Need to find a middle ground.
mrincredible said:
And in the meantime there will be another hard right conservative Supreme Court justice. And another if Ruth Bader Ginsburg (86) retires.
The next oldest Justice after Ginsburg is Steven Breyer (79).
Here in NJ the Bernie supporters didn't do much to swing the national election. I can't say what they did to submarine Hillary in states like Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, or the people who voted for Johnson or Stein in those states. It's impossible to know. But what we're faced with now is a Supreme Court that's going to be solidly packed with conservatives, some of whom are pretty young, for some time to come.
So if we end up seeing Roe V Wade overturned, I hope the Bernie backers will at least be able to admit that in this situation it would have been better if Hillary won.
It's no longer a hypothetical.
Hypothetically, if Gore had won
Would there have been a 9/11
The Iraq invasion
The Great Recession
Further along in the fight against climate change???
REVO luggage $100
More info
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
Just put some marinara sauce on it.