DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
jamie said:
So supporters who donated to her campaign hoping that she would qualify for the next debate must be feeling some buyer’s remorse now
She met the donor criteria long ago. I didn't agree with her decision, but that hasn't affected my support for her. Her message on War and Peace remains vital for a realistic discourse on the issues facing the country and the world. And her position on impeachment stands as an example of her good judgment and courage.
We talk about “existential threats,” but nothing is more threatening to our world than nuclear war. In the first week of my presidency, I will call for a summit with Russia and China to end the nuclear arms race and agree on steps to move the world back from the nuclear abyss. pic.twitter.com/5s22B9hyax
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) December 17, 2019
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
So supporters who donated to her campaign hoping that she would qualify for the next debate must be feeling some buyer’s remorse now
She met the donor criteria long ago. I didn't agree with her decision, but that hasn't affected my support for her. Her message on War and Peace remains vital for a realistic discourse on the issues facing the country and the world. And her position on impeachment stands as an example of her good judgment and courage.
Tulsi Gabbard does a huge public service by speaking out against the threat of nuclear war. It is so frightening to see how many people have been brainwashed by the MSM to think Russia is the worst and most evil threat to national security. This is a response I got on Facebook today and it is typical of what I hear from friends there:
"Feel sorry for your blindness. You even said what Russia did wasn't so bad. You do realize they're trying even more for the next one. You are no better than our president who gets his theories directly from Putin."
This was written by an intelligent, college-educated American-born person. It sounds off the wall-nuts, and there is no factual basis for this, except for what you hear on MSNBC/CNN/PBS/NPR/NYTs/WAPO, etc. This person has a lot of like-minded friends and I guess a lot of people would agree with her, including MOL posters. Should Trump or another president decide to go to war with Russia, this person would likely support that and it is based on lies and propaganda. This person does not understand that she is helping us get closer to nuclear war.
When will we ever learn?
nan said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
So supporters who donated to her campaign hoping that she would qualify for the next debate must be feeling some buyer’s remorse now
She met the donor criteria long ago. I didn't agree with her decision, but that hasn't affected my support for her. Her message on War and Peace remains vital for a realistic discourse on the issues facing the country and the world. And her position on impeachment stands as an example of her good judgment and courage.
Tulsi Gabbard does a huge public service by speaking out against the threat of nuclear war. It is so frightening to see how many people have been brainwashed by the MSM to think Russia is the worst and most evil threat to national security. This is a response I got on Facebook today and it is typical of what I hear from friends there:
"Feel sorry for your blindness. You even said what Russia did wasn't so bad. You do realize they're trying even more for the next one. You are no better than our president who gets his theories directly from Putin."
This was written by an intelligent, college-educated American-born person. It sounds off the wall-nuts, and there is no factual basis for this, except for what you hear on MSNBC/CNN/PBS/NPR/NYTs/WAPO, etc. This person has a lot of like-minded friends and I guess a lot of people would agree with her, including MOL posters. Should Trump or another president decide to go to war with Russia, this person would likely support that and it is based on lies and propaganda. This person does not understand that she is helping us get closer to nuclear war.
When will we ever learn?
I'm confused. You talk about the huge threat of nuclear war - and then discount the threat of Russia?
Who exactly do you think we're going to have a nuclear war with? India?
drummerboy said:
I'm confused. You talk about the huge threat of nuclear war - and then discount the threat of Russia?
Who exactly do you think we're going to have a nuclear war with? India?
I think we should be talking to Russia and not presenting it as the cartoon villain that has undermined our nonexistent Democracy. I don't know how Russia views the US, but I see how the American people, influenced by the MSM view Russia and it's not healthy. These are two nuclear powers and at least one of them thinks the other one is actively attacking them, albeit electronically. It is not hard to imagine that an event could take place where one or the other country started a nuclear war and the other responded in kind. And it's all based on fake news.
nan said:
This is a response I got on Facebook today and it is typical of what I hear from friends there:
"Feel sorry for your blindness. You even said what Russia did wasn't so bad. You do realize they're trying even more for the next one. You are no better than our president who gets his theories directly from Putin."
This was written by an intelligent, college-educated American-born person. It sounds off the wall-nuts, and there is no factual basis for this, except for what you hear on MSNBC/CNN/PBS/NPR/NYTs/WAPO, etc. This person has a lot of like-minded friends and I guess a lot of people would agree with her, including MOL posters. Should Trump or another president decide to go to war with Russia, this person would likely support that and it is based on lies and propaganda. This person does not understand that she is helping us get closer to nuclear war.
When will we ever learn?
An "intelligent, college-educated American-born person" would know that it's not correct to say, "there is no factual basis for this".
(As an aside, what the bleep does "American-born" have to do with the "she should know better" argument?)
The argument that if you are concerned about Russian influence means that you don't care about nuclear war (or worse, want war with Russia) is silly. It's as silly as the argument that people who don't endorse Bernie and his M4A "strategy" must be in favor of people dying because they can't get health care.
[Edited to add] Should someone tell Ms. Lauter over on the Facebook that Ms. Nan is talking smack about her on MOL?
nan said:
drummerboy said:
I'm confused. You talk about the huge threat of nuclear war - and then discount the threat of Russia?
Who exactly do you think we're going to have a nuclear war with? India?
I think we should be talking to Russia and not presenting it as the cartoon villain that has undermined our nonexistent Democracy. I don't know how Russia views the US, but I see how the American people, influenced by the MSM view Russia and it's not healthy. These are two nuclear powers and at least one of them thinks the other one is actively attacking them, albeit electronically. It is not hard to imagine that an event could take place where one or the other country started a nuclear war and the other responded in kind. And it's all based on fake news.
And who do you think should be talking to Russia. Trump? Pompeo? I mean, are you kidding?
nan said:
It is not hard to imagine that an event could take place where one or the other country started a nuclear war and the other responded in kind. And it's all based on fake news.
Perhaps this reflects a limited imagination on my part, but ever since you and Paul first advanced this idea, I've been trying, and failing, to imagine a plausible scenario where claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election lead to nuclear war.
PVW said:
Perhaps this reflects a limited imagination on my part, but ever since you and Paul first advanced this idea, I've been trying, and failing, to imagine a plausible scenario where claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election lead to nuclear war.
I'm also at a loss trying to understand how Trump is the person that the military-industrial complex fears because he'll make peace with Russia. Sure he loves strongmen like Putin. But is Putin dumb enough to negotiate with an untrustworthy liar and con man like Trump? There's no way a malignant narcissist is going to be the person who ends tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
Maybe it's me but I spend exactly zero seconds every day thinking about the threat of nuclear war with Russia. Zero.
Because there is no threat of nuclear war with Russia.
nohero said:
[Edited to add] Should someone tell Ms. __________ over on the Facebook that Ms. Nan is talking smack about her on MOL?
Sometimes Nan is right
sbenois said:
Maybe it's me but I spend exactly zero seconds every day thinking about the threat of nuclear war with Russia. Zero.
Because there is no threat of nuclear war with Russia.
You say that because you live in 2019 unlike Paul and Nan who, on this issue, are stuck in 1962.
In some ways Putin is also stuck in the past. He wants to "Make Russia Great Again". He seeks to create a Russian Empire, or some facsimile.
If there is any threat of nuclear war it is in the Middle-East between nations there or perhaps between India and Pakistan.
nohero said:
An "intelligent, college-educated American-born person" would know that it's not correct to say, "there is no factual basis for this".
(As an aside, what the bleep does "American-born" have to do with the "she should know better" argument?)
The argument that if you are concerned about Russian influence means that you don't care about nuclear war (or worse, want war with Russia) is silly. It's as silly as the argument that people who don't endorse Bernie and his M4A "strategy" must be in favor of people dying because they can't get health care.
[Edited to add] Should someone tell [Name] over on the Facebook that Ms. Nan is talking smack about her on MOL?
You should erase that name--that's really unfair to post someone's name. You would not like it if I announced your real name on MOL.
drummerboy said:
And who do you think should be talking to Russia. Trump? Pompeo? I mean, are you kidding?
The President of the United States should be talking to Russia. Hopefully, in 2020 we get a new president who has an anti-Cold War view talking to Putin.
PVW said:
nan said:
It is not hard to imagine that an event could take place where one or the other country started a nuclear war and the other responded in kind. And it's all based on fake news.Perhaps this reflects a limited imagination on my part, but ever since you and Paul first advanced this idea, I've been trying, and failing, to imagine a plausible scenario where claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election lead to nuclear war.
I wonder if the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and nan agree on what is and isn’t fake news. Here are a few brief excerpts from the Bulletin’s latest annual statement on its Doomsday Clock (which is due to be updated next month and was moved up in 2018 to 11:58, as close to midnight as it was in 1953):
As you will see in the pages that follow, this year’s Doomsday Clock statement draws attention to the devolving state of nuclear and climate security. It also points to a qualitative change in information warfare and a steady misrepresentation of fact that is undermining confidence in political structures and scientific inquiry. ...
Amid these unfortunate nuclear and climate developments, there was a rise during the last year in the intentional corruption of the information ecosystem on which modern civilization depends. In many forums, including particularly social media, nationalist leaders and their surrogates lied shamelessly, insisting that their lies were truth, and the truth “fake news.” These intentional attempts to distort reality exaggerate social divisions, undermine trust in science, and diminish confidence in elections and democratic institutions. Because these distortions attack the rational discourse required for solving the complex problems facing humanity, cyber-enabled information warfare aggravates other major global dangers—including those posed by nuclear weapons and climate change—as it undermines civilization generally. ...
Today, citizens in every country can use the power of the Internet to fight against social media disinformation and improve the long-term prospects of their children and grandchildren. They can insist on facts, and discount nonsense. They can demand action to reduce the existential threat of nuclear war and unchecked climate change.
nan said:
You should erase that name--that's really unfair to post someone's name. You would not like it if I announced your real name on MOL.
If it’s the Ms. Lauter I know, she fully and proudly identifies herself on MOL as a real person all the time. (Or did when she posted regularly.)
PVW said:
Perhaps this reflects a limited imagination on my part, but ever since you and Paul first advanced this idea, I've been trying, and failing, to imagine a plausible scenario where claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election lead to nuclear war.
I can't speak for Paul, but for me, the 2016 Russiagate crapola helped prime the pump by brainwashing seemingly smart people into thinking Russia was the evilest bad guys in the world, hell-bent on world domination, fixed the 2020 election and are under everyone's beds. When you have that kind of consensus, you have a population willing to support an aggressive move towards Russia. You have a population opposed to any kind of peaceful diplomacy. You have people who think there is no greater evil on earth than Vladimir Putin, and he's not even in the running for that. Lots of competition there.
Bush could not have proceeded with the Iraq war without first lying about WMDs to get us all aboard. In this case, so many are viewing Russia as attacking our country. The alleged 2016 election interference was compared to Pearl Harbor and 911. This is just nuts.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:
You should erase that name--that's really unfair to post someone's name. You would not like it if I announced your real name on MOL.
If it’s the Ms. Lauter I know, she fully and proudly identifies herself on MOL as a real person all the time. (Or did when she posted regularly.)
Let her do what she wants--nohero has no right to expose her like that.
sbenois said:
Maybe it's me but I spend exactly zero seconds every day thinking about the threat of nuclear war with Russia. Zero.
Because there is no threat of nuclear war with Russia.
Atomic scientists disagree with you. The Doomsday Clock is now set 2 minutes to midnight.
STANV said:
She was talking about XXXXXX?
You really should delete that post.
nohero said:
An "intelligent, college-educated American-born person" would know that it's not correct to say, "there is no factual basis for this".
(As an aside, what the bleep does "American-born" have to do with the "she should know better" argument?)
The argument that if you are concerned about Russian influence means that you don't care about nuclear war (or worse, want war with Russia) is silly. It's as silly as the argument that people who don't endorse Bernie and his M4A "strategy" must be in favor of people dying because they can't get health care.
[Edited to add] Should someone tell XXXX over on the Facebook that Ms. Nan is talking smack about her on MOL?
Someone should delete the real name of a person used here. This is seriously unhinged behavior. I just unfriended you on Facebook, by the way.
nan said:
nohero said:
[Edited to add] Should someone tell [Name] over on the Facebook that Ms. Nan is talking smack about her on MOL?
You should erase that name--that's really unfair to post someone's name. You would not like it if I announced your real name on MOL.
Ms. Nan, there is someone named Ms. Lauter who posted on the Facebook in response to you. You quoted her here on MOL, and said "Should Trump or another president decide to go to war with Russia, this person would likely support that." Should someone NOT be told that you were saying that about her here?
nan said:
Atomic scientists disagree with you. The Doomsday Clock is now set 2 minutes to midnight.
Please get an immediate meeting put together with Putin, Pauil, Tulsi the DOA Candidate, Assad, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Jill Stein and Krystal Ball and get this huge problem resolved.
And please don't let anyone leave of your War Room until you're done. No communication with anyone outside at all. Its better for everyone that way.
Thank you in advance for your work on this.
sbenois said:
Please get an immediate meeting put together with Putin, Pauil, Tulsi the DOA Candidate, Assad, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Jill Stein and Krystal Ball and get this huge problem resolved.
And please don't let anyone leave of your War Room until you're done. No communication with anyone outside at all. Its better for everyone that way.
Thank you in advance for your work on this.
Is it safe?
nohero said:
nan said:
nohero said:
[Edited to add] Should someone tell [Name] over on the Facebook that Ms. Nan is talking smack about her on MOL?
You should erase that name--that's really unfair to post someone's name. You would not like it if I announced your real name on MOL.
Ms. Nan, there is someone named XXXX who posted on the Facebook in response to you. You quoted her here on MOL, and said "Should Trump or another president decide to go to war with Russia, this person would likely support that." Should someone NOT be told that you were saying that about her here?
nohero did a very wrong thing and should be banned for it--but since this is MOL, nothing will be done. Should I tell everyone your real name and where you live? Maybe you would not mind that. Shall I tell everyone about your multiple screen names? Seriously, this is getting crazy. You are out of line.
nan said:
nohero said:
nan said:
nohero said:
[Edited to add] Should someone tell [Name] over on the Facebook that Ms. Nan is talking smack about her on MOL?
You should erase that name--that's really unfair to post someone's name. You would not like it if I announced your real name on MOL.
Ms. Nan, there is someone named XXXX who posted on the Facebook in response to you. You quoted her here on MOL, and said "Should Trump or another president decide to go to war with Russia, this person would likely support that." Should someone NOT be told that you were saying that about her here?
nohero did a very wrong thing and should be banned for it--but since this is MOL, nothing will be done. Should I tell everyone your real name and where you live? Maybe you would not mind that. Shall I tell everyone about your multiple screen names? Seriously, this is getting crazy. You are out of line.
Feel free to out me. I have adopted the same attitude as Wendy, so there is no hiding involved, unlike someone named nan.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Feel free to out me. I have adopted the same attitude as XXXX, so there is no hiding involved, unlike someone named nan.
How do you know XXXX's attitude? That is just something nohero said.
nan said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Feel free to out me. I have adopted the same attitude as XXXX, so there is no hiding involved, unlike someone named nan.
How do you know XXXX's attitude? That is just something nohero said.
Because I know her, and have sparred with her on many occasions right here on MOL.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
She opted not to participate before the deadline to meet the criteria, but as it turned out she got only 3 of 4 qualifying polls anyway.