Quote:

Why would they knock on his door for attempting to connect with Assange?  He wasn't doing it to help Trump.

---

Psilynut2 said:

Quote:

Why would they knock on his door for attempting to connect with Assange?  He wasn't doing it to help Trump.

---

So the reason for this text exchange is that Credico guessed , guessed it to the day ?

“”” In one message sent on October 1, 2016, Credico texted Stone, "Big news Wednesday. Now pretend u [sic] don't know me."

"U died 5 years ago," Stone replied.

In response, Credico wrote, "Great. Hillary's campaign will die this week."

Two days later, on October 3, Credico said, "I think it's on for tomorrow." Shortly after, he texted Stone, "Why can't you get Trump to come out and say that he would give Julian Assange Asylum"”””

---

hypnogym said:

Facts. Am idealist, very disappointed, very cynical.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The Ecstatic said:

Jimmy just takes his critique of the liberal establishment so far that he often ends up just defending the right. Don’t like how he cozies up to people like Sam Harris either.

---

He defends the right for the same reasons I sometimes do.  If someone said "we can't elect Trump because he colluded with Putin", Jimmy would respond, "well, we don't know that he did, but we can't elect Trump for a whole shitload of other reasons".  Maybe he's too honest?

I'll look up what he's done with Sam Harris that you find offensive (or you can tell me because I gotta run to Universal Studios for the night), because that doesn't ring a bell.  Could it be agreeing with a point that Sam was correct about (similar to how I agree with some points Tucker Carlson is right about)?

---

I tried finding what you were referring to, but all I could on Jimmy Dore regarding Sam Harris was this piece:

He talks about Sam from 2:55 - 5:15

That wasn't very endearing, so I'm sure you were talking about something else.

Even if Jimmy did agree with Sam Harris on something, it was probably a point worth agreeing about.

To me, this where both sides should come together and raise a toast or high five each other, not bitch at someone on their own side for not hating anything and everything coming from the other side enough.

XUL often complained about how he felt the left has become the party of hate, and unfortunately, I can see where he was coming from (generically speaking, you're not even close to the primary culprit).

Let's celebrate the things we have in common with the other side and build on that.  It might help get someone like Bernie or Tulsi elected.  If we won't recognize the good from the other side, why would we expect them to recognize it on ours? 

/rant

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The Ecstatic said:

Jimmy just takes his critique of the liberal establishment so far that he often ends up just defending the right. Don’t like how he cozies up to people like Sam Harris either.

---

He defends the right for the same reasons I sometimes do.  If someone said "we can't elect Trump because he colluded with Putin", Jimmy would respond, "well, we don't know that he did, but we can't elect Trump for a whole shitload of other reasons".  Maybe he's too honest?

I'll look up what he's done with Sam Harris that you find offensive (or you can tell me because I gotta run to Universal Studios for the night), because that doesn't ring a bell.  Could it be agreeing with a point that Sam was correct about (similar to how I agree with some points Tucker Carlson is right about)?

---

I tried finding what you were referring to, but all I could on Jimmy Dore regarding Sam Harris was this piece:

He talks about Sam from 2:55 - 5:15

That wasn't very endearing, so I'm sure you were talking about something else.

Even if Jimmy did agree with Sam Harris on something, it was probably a point worth agreeing about.

To me, this where both sides should come together and raise a toast or high five each other, not bitch at someone on their own side for not hating anything and everything coming from the other side enough.

XUL often complained about how he felt the left has become the party of hate, and unfortunately, I can see where he was coming from (generically speaking, you're not even close to the primary culprit).

Let's celebrate the things we have in common with the other side and build on that.  It might help get someone like Bernie or Tulsi elected.  If we won't recognize the good from the other side, why would we expect them to recognize it on ours? 

/rant

---

"left has become the party of hate"

Yes, in many cases this is the truth. It's also becoming the party of division. If you support just ONE decent point from the other side, you suddenly are now are not a "non-biased rational actor" and you now have "personal bias". That's utterly ridiculous and a childlike mentality. It's basically stating 'if you agree with me, you're rational. If you disagree with me, you're biased and irrational'.

There is no longer any middle ground, it's agree with every talking point OR you're now on the far-right. That's a very dangerous mentality to have and it's where we're unfortunately headed as a nation. It's really a mentality that looking for a confrontation, not good.

The Ecstatic said:

You think by feigning objectivity you’re making the left more appealing to the right, but really you’re just giving them talking points

---

The Ecstatic said:

Either way, apply some of that cold objective logic to Jimmy Dore. I mean you just said that regardless of what I’m referring to you trust that Dore was in the right. I mean damn dude I don’t even look at Bernie like that.

---

The Ecstatic said:

As far as things we have in common, yes, let’s build on that. But when qman says things like “I love Bernie but he needs to drop the SJW stuff” the response should be to dissect and antagonize that talking point, not go back to my Sanders campaign field office and tell them we gotta get more racist if we wanna win. Conservatives are welcome to the movement, but not at the exclusion of others, that’s not what solidarity is. And solidarity doesn’t mean tolerating intolerance either.

---

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

"left has become the party of hate"

Yes, in many cases this is the truth. It's also becoming the party of division. If you support just ONE decent point from the other side, you suddenly are now are not a "non-biased rational actor" and you now have "personal bias". That's utterly ridiculous and a childlike mentality. It's basically stating 'if you agree with me, you're rational. If you disagree with me, you're biased and irrational'.

There is no longer any middle ground, it's agree with every talking point OR you're now on the far-right. That's a very dangerous mentality to have and it's where we're unfortunately headed as a nation. It's really a mentality that looking for a confrontation, not good.

---

Thank you for proving my point.

---

The Ecstatic said:

In a country where half the voters don’t vote, we don’t need to bend over backwards (in vain 99% of the time) to convince racists to be compassionate.

You think by feigning objectivity you’re making the left more appealing to the right, but really you’re just giving them talking points, or adopting existing ones for your own purposes. I mean that’s just a fundamental reality of modern politics.

Either way, apply some of that cold objective logic to Jimmy Dore. I mean you just said that regardless of what I’m referring to you trust that Dore was in the right. I mean damn dude I don’t even look at Bernie like that.



As far as things we have in common, yes, let’s build on that. But when qman says things like “I love Bernie but he needs to drop the SJW stuff” the response should be to dissect and antagonize that talking point, not go back to my Sanders campaign field office and tell them we gotta get more racist if we wanna win. Conservatives are welcome to the movement, but not at the exclusion of others, that’s not what solidarity is. And solidarity doesn’t mean tolerating intolerance either.

---

Stop with the strawman, I'm not asking Bernie to be racist. Myself and millions others want economic nationalism for US CITIZENS, not everyone who can sneak into our nation. 

Do you want Bernie to win and improve the nation for all US citizens?    Or you want to maintain the divide and have Trump for another 4 years?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanders-immigration-plan

"Halt Deportations, abolish ICE, welcome 50k climate migrants, give welfare to all"

This nonsense isn't going to cut it and Trump will use it against him big time. It's a political losing strategy.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

"left has become the party of hate"

Yes, in many cases this is the truth. It's also becoming the party of division. If you support just ONE decent point from the other side, you suddenly are now are not a "non-biased rational actor" and you now have "personal bias". That's utterly ridiculous and a childlike mentality. It's basically stating 'if you agree with me, you're rational. If you disagree with me, you're biased and irrational'.

There is no longer any middle ground, it's agree with every talking point OR you're now on the far-right. That's a very dangerous mentality to have and it's where we're unfortunately headed as a nation. It's really a mentality that looking for a confrontation, not good.

---

Thank you for proving my point.

---

What point of yours did he just prove?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to understand your post.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

The Ecstatic said:

You think by feigning objectivity you’re making the left more appealing to the right, but really you’re just giving them talking points

---

I think you completely missed the point of my last post.  I said absolutely nothing about giving racism a platform.  I said we "should come together and raise a toast or high five each other" when we agree on something, not bash them about something we agree on because we don't agree with all of their other ideas.

The Ecstatic said:

Either way, apply some of that cold objective logic to Jimmy Dore. I mean you just said that regardless of what I’m referring to you trust that Dore was in the right. I mean damn dude I don’t even look at Bernie like that.

---

Fair enough.  So what was the issue was with Sam Harris that made you say "the serious people on the left don’t take him seriously"?

The Ecstatic said:

As far as things we have in common, yes, let’s build on that. But when qman says things like “I love Bernie but he needs to drop the SJW stuff” the response should be to dissect and antagonize that talking point, not go back to my Sanders campaign field office and tell them we gotta get more racist if we wanna win. Conservatives are welcome to the movement, but not at the exclusion of others, that’s not what solidarity is. And solidarity doesn’t mean tolerating intolerance either.

---

Again, in the post you responded to, I said nothing about giving opposing views a platform.  I said I think it's ok to agree with the other side on the things we agree on.  We shouldn't just hate a Sam Harris talking point just because it came from Sam Harris.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Dore falls into the same category as Gabbard imo, or Michael Tracey. They have some good politics and are right about most things, but also have some monumentally bad takes, and their supporters do more harm than good for the progressive movement at large.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Can’t even begin to explain how many Gabbard supporters have basically decided to not vote for Bernie simply because he isn’t shitting all over Hillary for her. There’s a fine line between antagonizing power structures to the point of fomenting change, and antagonizing them to the point of turning off the people who you may have had on your side. Many supporters of the 3 people I named do not understand that. Or take Yang Supporter as an example. It should be pretty obvious that Yang isn’t going to win, but point this out to him and he concern trolls about not ultimately voting Sanders because of me telling him that. Childish and self defeating attitude if you’re a serious progressive. Same goes for the Tulsi or bust people, throwing tantrums on social media and discarding the one real hope at a progressive presidency all to prolong their candidate’s pipe dream for  another couple months.

And these things are why I understand your side of the argument. We need to convince the tulsi people and the Yang people and even the trump people (eventually). But it’s a little more complicated than that. We need to find a way to change what’s politically viable, but to do so we must remain politically viable. It’s a tightrope walk.

---