Category: Uncategorized

Hillary Clinton re-emerges to attack Bernie

You’d think after suffering an embarrassing loss like losing the Presidency to a reality TV host who was the most unpopular nominee in history, most people would fade away and try to stay out of the limelight as to not keep bringing up that loss over and over. However, for some reason Hillary Clinton keeps popping up to get her name back in the news with dumb comments. Recently it was implying Tulsi Gabbard was a Russian asset and now she’s turned to Bernie Sanders saying no one likes him and that she’s not sure she’ll support him if he’s the nominee. Let’s not focus on that claim since he’s the most popular candidate in the Democratic Primary and the most popular Senator. By attacking the most popular Democratic candidate and a frontrunner in the race, the question has to be asked…..is Hillary Clinton doing Putin’s work??? Was her claiming Tulsi was a Russian asset classic projection trying to shift the heat off herself??? These are questions that need to be answered but since Hillary hasn’t denied them yet it must be true or at the very least….she’s hiding some kind of hidden agenda.

In all seriousness though its funny that all these centrists who constantly babble on about unity and the need to VoTe BlUe No MaTtEr WhO are the ones who always launch the most vicious attacks and can never commit to supporting a progressive. But while everyone talking about this story is focusing on Hillary, rightly so, this isn’t surprising or out of character for her. Instead I’m gonna focus on Bernie who’s weakness is shown here.

Bernie refuses to engage in these things or fight back. After a surrogate called out Biden’s shady past on the issue of corruption, Bernie apologized. This will be an issue that Trump will go after relentlessly in the general election so the primary should be the time for Biden to be prepared and give voters a chance to see how Biden will respond. Besides that it is legitimate to question his son’s history of cashing in on the family name. But Bernie backed off and apologized and seems to have learned nothing from 2016. Even though he went pretty light on criticizing Clinton, he still gets accused of hurting her in the general (which ignored the fact he spent more time campaigning in Wisconsin than she did). Time and Time again Bernie seems to appease these people and it does not matter, they keep attacking him. People like him because they see him as fighting against politicians/the media/the system or speaking truth to power. He needs to just lean into that. Tell these establishment figures like Hillary Clinton or people in the media who cry about attacks to fuck off. People will respect him for standing up to these people and the people who will be offended or clutch their pearls over this are the same people that already think the worst of him. People already think he’s an angry old man so why not just go for it….make Larry David seem like a warm kind guy. But hey maybe Bernie knows if he goes too hard at the Clinton world he could end up having another “heart attack” or worse…..Hillary could end his campaign by endorsing him.

Still by Still breakdown of the Warren/Sanders snubbed handshake heard round the world

If you really clicked to see this, please, get some help. There are so many more important things going on in the world. Remember when the U.S assassinated a foreign general and has yet to show any kind of coherent reasoning for it, I know it feels like months ago but it was only 2 weeks ago. Thanks to the media’s 24/7 carousel of bullshit we’re focusing on ridiculous things like a snubbed handshake instead of things that have a real impact in the world…..well besides keeping pundits on the payroll. If your really care about this handshake, put your phone down, take a look in the mirror, take a walk or something. Call up that loved one you haven’t talked to in a while. Adopt a pet. Do anything but poison your brain on this petty bullshit. But if you’re really feigning your latest spin round the 24/7 gossip carousel just flip on CNN.

Last night’s debate was (another) embarrassment for CNN

The debate last night was pretty boring. No real fireworks like in the last debate (see: wine cave) and the only real fight throughout the night was Bernie Sanders vs CNN. In every debate there are complaints about the moderators and I can’t think of a good debate mostly because the media just wants them to be theater or reality TV to boost their ratings instead of asking substantive questions that might actually inform viewers. Last night’s debate was especially bad though. The framing on every question was absolutely absurd. Wolf Blitzer asked nearly every candidate if we should keep troops in the Middle East but later asked how people could trust the government to lower drug prices when so many people don’t trust the government. So according to Wolf, can’t trust the government to do something people actually want (lower drug prices) but no mention of trust when the government does something very few people want (keep engaging militarily in the Middle East). You’d think cause Wolf was so considered about trust in the government you’d think that he would bring up the Washington Post report detailing how the public has been lied to about Afghanistan for over a decade. Did he? Of course not.

It doesn’t stop there though, the questions on healthcare, like in every debate, are framed from a insurance company manner. Every discussion is, “how much does it cost, does it cost too much, isn’t it way too unrealistic to pass”. Now, being open with my bias here, I happen to support a single payer system but that’s not the reason for this complaint. I welcome hard questions to any candidate on any issue but that’s not what happens. There has never been a question to a moderate candidate asking them to defend a system where people go bankrupt from medical debt or with surprise billing. The moderator literally asked Bernie how he would make sure Medicare For All wouldn’t bankrupt the country. On its face its such an absurd question seeing as though every other major country manages to do it and since insurance and drug companies make profits every year there has to be the money available to cover the costs. The question is never “Joe Biden if this system where thousands and thousands of people suffer from medical debt and where people have to ration life-savings drugs, morally bankrupt?”. Every questions seemingly has to be framed to fearmonger Medicare For All focusing on cost. I wonder why the media only focuses on cost when its something that helps people (healthcare, free college, cancelling student debt, etc.) but they don’t ask one question on the cost of war or keeping troops stationed all around the world.

But by far the most egregious question of the night occurred during the Warren/Sanders “drama”. Putting aside the substance of it, here is the transcript of the interaction, see if you catch anything off:

  • Moderator: “Senator Sanders…you’re saying you never told Senator Warren a woman couldn’t win the Presidency”
  • Sanders: “That is correct”
  • Moderator: “Senator Warren what did you think when Bernie said that”

The fact that a supposed “neutral, unbiased” journalist would ask Bernie if he said something and then completely dismiss that to claim it as fact is just malpractice plain and simple. It was so crazy Bernie and the audience laughed at it. But CNN continued to show its bias with the post debate coverage with its 8 person panel (with 0 pro-Bernie voices) who all claimed Sanders slipped up and Warren did great there. A pro-Warren pundit even criticized Bernie for acting like its a he-said she-said situation because there was reporting that backed it up (4 anonymous sources not in the room). That claim was so crazy Anderson Cooper had to correct her and point out since there was only 2 of them in the room and they claim different things that it is in fact a he-said she-said situation. That exchange was so bad that even the people at Morning Joe called out the god-awful question:

The DNC, for obvious reasons, would never do this but they should take the debates out of the hands of the mainstream press and give it to outside news groups. Or just have issue debates where moderators are experts or professionals in that field. But since that’s never gonna happen these debates are gonna continue to be a joke.

Democratic Debate Recap

Tonight’s debate, the last one before voting starts, was honestly…… a pretty boring one. I’m not sure that any of the candidates really helped or hurt their stock significantly. If I had to pick a winner it would either Bernie or Biden because he didn’t face many attacks even though he was having one of his patented *struggle to form complete sentences* nights (which shows how low the bar is for Biden). Bernie faced the toughest questions and a lot of the attacks which made him seem like a frontruner and he was able to stand up pretty well which should also help him. Overall I think everything in the race will remain pretty consistent. It looks like a 4-way race in Iowa & New Hampshire and everyone else needs to try and build momentum. Here’s some thoughts I jotted down on each candidate at various points in the night:

  • Bernie Sanders: Got the majority of attacks from other candidates/moderators. Got the first laugh of the debate with the Biden/North Korea joke. Was emphatic in denying he said a woman couldn’t win the Presidency. Should’ve went harder on Biden on electability (iraq, trade, social security, corruption). Did he lose any supporters? Probably Not Did he gain any supporters? Maybe
  • Joe Biden: Somehow avoided any attacks. Benefits from Warren/Sanders scrap as he fades into the background. Though he didn’t face many attacks from his opponents he fought a hard battle with the daunting task of articulating a coherent thought in full sentence form. The bar for Biden might honestly be underground at this point because this was a good night for him. Did he lose any supporters? Maybe Did he gain any supporters? Maybe
  • Elizabeth Warren: Gave her standards argument and sounded compelling doing it. Solid night for her but the whole thing with Bernie Sanders just wasn’t the best look. When everyone assumes it was someone in/related to your campaign who leaked this you, have to say what actually happened. (If you didn’t leak it say that) If he actually said it, there’s 2 options (he said “I don’t think a woman can win (sexist but seemingly out of character) or he made a point that sexism would hurt her campaign (more likely but also a point made by other candidates and in the media). So either say “He said it and he’s wrong and it was sexist or He made a point that I disagreed with because I yada, yada, yada, and I’m the best candidate to beat Trump. She didn’t have a bad night but didn’t excel. Weird she went after Bernie but won’t talk about Hunter Biden even though corruption is a central theme of her campaign. Did she lose any supporters? Probably not Did she gain any supporters? Maybe
  • Amy Klobuchar: Gotta give Amy credit she’s consistent. She sticks to the 3 M’s, Mom Jokes, Moderation, Midwest. She passed on another chance to attack Pete’s record, Midwestern Nice won this round. She probably has the best record out of any candidate not in the top 3. The media is trying too hard to make her stick but I’ll take her over than Pete or Steyer any day. Did she lose any supporters? Probably Not Did she gain any supporters? Maybe
  • Tom Steyer: Steyer always has a couple good ideas and I think I’m actually starting to like him as a person but he needs to end this vanity campaign. A complete non-starter for him & Bloomberg is if you actually cared so much, why not spend those hundreds of millions you’re spending on TV ads or billboards and spend them on actually helping people instead of trying to become President so you could maybe help them in the future. Did he lose any supporters? (Unclear if he has real, live supporters but) Probably not Did he gain any supporters? Maybe
  • Pete Buttigieg: Easily the most hateable candidate in the race. There’s not an issue in the world that’s not personal to Pete. He didn’t have a bad night but never really stood out. Disappeared at times. Only idea I like from Pete is sunset provision on any vote to authorize military force. At the same time he sorta looks like the kinda guy who might get off everytime he ordered a drone strike. Did he lose any supporters? Maybe Did he gain any supporters? Probably not

There was only one loser from the night though, not surprisingly, CNN. The debate started with a decently substantive debate over foreign policy, trade, and healthcare. This highlighted the differences between the top 3 candidates but (like usual) the framing of the debate was way off. The debate around healthcare is always framed through cost. Never is it should healthcare be a right, why does America pay more than anyone for healthcare, why are drug prices so high, etc. CNN shows their bias with questions like “How do you make sure [Medicare-For-All] doesn’t bankrupt the country” instead of “How do we make sure people don’t go bankrupt due to healthcare costs” or “Is the healthcare system we have today morally bankrupt”. Every question seemed to have been taken directly from insurance agency propaganda. On Foreign policy the questions about Iraq were solid but it took Tom Steyer to bring up the report that leaders (under R & D admins) have consistently lied to the public about the war in Afghanistan. I would have also liked to see the moderators push back on Biden for Syria, Libya, & drone strikes during the Obama Administration since he used that to try and shield himself. I just don’t understand how every single debate is just right-wing questions. Of course the candidates should face questions framed that way but in a Democratic Primary, you would think there would be some questions framed from a left wing perspective. I also hate how every issue is framed “Candidate X, why is Candidate Y wrong” or “Candidate Y, Candidate X said this about you please respond”. Yes you need to hash out the differences between the candidates but instead of just orchestrating mini fights, why not bring some actual facts or studies in and actually push back on the candidates’ talking points. But CNN really showed their bias/incompetence with the Warren/Sanders scrap.

I’m surprised it took CNN more than a half hour to get to their favorite piece of gossip at the moment, whether a woman could win the Presidency. Even though its a textbook he-said she-said situation as they were the only 2 people in the room, CNN is treating the accusation Bernie said a woman couldn’t win as a fact. Now let me remind you that this is the same group of people who with Trump always say “yes experts or facts say (x) but Trump says (y)” and treat it likes its a real debate. So apparently, according to CNN, a pathological liar like Trump should get the benefit of the doubt but when Sanders denies an accusation, doesn’t matter, it is still a fact.

If you want a more in depth look at the current state of the race click Here. As always I’ll end this recap with a look at the tiers:

Democrat Debate Preview/State of the Race

Tonight is the last debate before voting starts in Iowa (the site of the debate). Soon we’ll move on from dumb punditry based on nothing but the poll du jour and instead onto dumb punditry based on cherry picked results that fit their preconceived notions. This debate will feature 6 candidates (Sanders, Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, & Steyer). Nobody knows what will be talked about during the debate yet (though since CNN is hosting so we know Hillary Clinton will have been leaked the questions already) but there will definitely be questions on impeachment, why we can’t afford to pay for Medicare For All like every other major country, and why war with Iran might actually be good. Wolf Blitzer is one of the moderators tonight which will be interesting (1st time that sentenced has ever been typed out) to see if any of the candidates will speak out and take an anti-drone stance directly to his face. There will also almost certainly be a question about the Warren/Bernie sexism thing that leaked yesterday. Recap Here for anyone that missed it or just likes to read some good ol’ fashioned CNN bashing. (Side Note: What is wrong with Elizabeth Warren? From not running in 2016 to not endorsing Bernie in hopes of being VP to releasing a DNA test to now having her campaign leak something from a meeting 2 years ago…..whatever the political equivalent of the Midas Touch is, Warren seems to have the opposite. Did she receive a recent endorsement from Drake or something??? Warren had her surge, got all the glowing media coverage and now is resorting to desperate attacks like this. She went after Pete in the last debate and was pretty effective, why not keep doing that? It’s so easy even Amy Klobuchar’s mom jokes were landing against him. Pete looks like a grown up Patrick Bateman mini-me or a candidate created perfectly in a CIA lab to be President except he was cut short by about half a foot (just enough to give him a Napoleonic-complex). If you’re Warren and looking to attack someone new why not Biden? Warren never touches the Hunter Biden stuff but is willing to imply that the person she’s closest to (both personally and ideologically) is sexist which seems like a wild strategy to this pundit jabroni. The whole thing makes little sense but we’ll see how she handles it tonight.

Another thing that I’m sure will be touched on is electability. Now that the establishment media has finally realized Bernie could actually win, the attacks are sure to be on their way. It could backfire for them though as it highlights the holes in their groupthink that Bernie is unelectable but Biden is the most electable out of anyone. Instead of trying to convince you why that’s wrong, I’m gonna resort to a tactic favored in sports media, the blind resume. I’m gonna show 2 candidates record and let you decide who is more electable (keep in mind how Trump won in 2016):

Somehow the same geniuses who saw Trump effectively attack Clinton in 2016 over the Iraq War, Trade Deals, and Corruption think the guy with all the same baggage is somehow the most electable. The idea that Biden is the most electable is so accepted in the media its glossed over as if its a fact. Assumptions like that are the reason less people are tuning in to hear the “expert” opinions and instead turning to idiots like me on the Internet.

The overall State of the Race right now seems to be a 4 way race for the first 2 states (Iowa & New Hampshire) with the other candidates looking to use a good performance in one of those states to keep them in the race . Because of this I’ve got the field into 3 tiers now, those who can plausibly win the nomination, those who need momentum from an early state, & billionaires. Below I’ll lay out the tiers and each person’s path to victory.

Can Win the Nomination:

  • Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren: Both Sanders & Warren are in a very similar position. If one of them wins the first two contests that could catapult them into winning big on Super Tuesday and becoming the unquestioned frontrunner. If either wins 1, it obviously helps but they’ll still be in the pack. Worst case for both of these candidates is if they don’t win either Iowa or New Hampshire in that case they could be on a path to dropping out.
  • Joe Biden: Best case for Biden is that 2 different people win Iowa & New Hampshire and he can hang on in Nevada, South Carolina & on Super Tuesday. Worst Case for Biden is either Sanders or Warren win both and significantly cut into his support. If that happens his only appeal (electability) could be shattered and this run will end like the previous 3 times Biden has tried to run, failure

Candidates Needing Momentum

All the other candidates need momentum from the first two states to give them a chance to get significant delegates/bring in the money to keep them in the race. The Top person in this category is Pete Buttigieg who could win in Iowa or New Hampshire but it’s hard to see him winning the nomination if he can’t break 1% with African-Americans. Winning early might help but it seems crazy to think a big chunk of black voters will support the guy who has controversy over policing & race relations in the small town he was mayor as well as the guy who faked black endorsements for a plan of his during this campaign. Amy Klobuchar needs a strong performance in Iowa to prove she has actual support and keep her in the race. A poor performance would likely lead to her dropping out if her “MidWest appeal can’t work in Iowa (quick prayer for her staffers if that’s the case). Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard seem to be focused on New Hampshire and a good performance there, or a surprising performance in Iowa, would keep them afloat while disappointing performances could likewise see them exit. Though I will say Yang is unique in that his grassroots fundraising could keep him in the race for a while if they stick with him.

Billionaires

The last tier of candidates are the billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. The media was shocked recently by Steyer’s rise in Nevada & SC (if you want to know why he’s surged, click here). Both are spending insane amounts of money so far which has bought them single digit support in polls. However, it’s very difficult to imagine either one has the ability to actually get people to vote for them. The only good thing about these 2 in the race is that for so long political scientists and laymens alike have argues about the role of money in politics and now we will finally see exactly how much support a person can straight up buy.

CNN embarrasses itself (yet again) with Bernie Sanders Smear

Earlier Today CNN ran an outrageous piece, later picked up by other outlets, that claims Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren a woman couldn’t win the Presidency when the two met in 2018 before announcing their candidacies. Now as the basis for this wild accusation CNN relied on 4 anonymous sources who were not in the meeting. Hey CNN, this is not news, this is not journalism. If people want to make these claims they should have to attach their name to it and CNN should absolutely not have run this smear weeks before voting starts. Unfortunately they seem to only care about clicks and reality TV style storylines (“coincidentally” CNN hosts the debate tomorrow night and I’m sure this won’t come up at all).

If CNN actually cared about journalistic integrity they would have not only chosen not to run this clear smear by a rival campaign but also provided some context. Sanders & Warren are self-described close friends. If Sanders actually said that, why would Warren publicly support and defend Sanders for this whole campaign? This such a clear hit-job and I truly don’t know how to frame it any other way. Not only is the entire story based on hearsay from anonymous sources but it just seems completely out of character for Sanders to say. Two clips resurfaced as a result of this of Sanders in the 80s talking about how a woman could win the Presidency and telling a class of 3rd graders that the girls in the class had the same right to pursue politics as the boys.

Now while I understand the need to use anonymous sources sometimes, the media has gotten out of control publishing literal gossip based on anonymous sources, a practice which should be left to TMZ or the magazines at grocery store registers. The problem is instead of actually covering something of substance (which would require effort and some level of understanding) or making the sources put their name to stories like these, CNN (and others) would rather just take this low-hanging fruit that they hope will drive clicks and views so they can keep cashing their paychecks. The current state of political media is an utter embarrassment evidenced by the fact that the people who are supposed to deliver news and inform people are less favorable and less trusted than the President who lies constantly. Any self-respecting person or news agency that is considered less trustworthy than Trump would take a moment to reflect and adjust their behavior but I guess even though these people get paid immaculate salaries, self-respect appears to be a luxury they cannot afford.

House Passes War Powers Resolution/Impeachment disaster

In honor of the Jeopardy GOAT tournament, this is a daily double blog……here’s one blog on two of the more under-covered topics in the media today……..Iran and Impeachment.

Yesterday the House passed a War Powers Resolution in an effort to disprove of the recent assassination of Iranian General, Qasem Soleimani. This vote was bipartisan and it comes after members across the spectrum condemned the intelligence briefing given on the attack. But while this resolution seemingly has some merit, let’s look back at the not so distant past, when Congress passed a similar resolution on the U.S involvement in Yemen. That was subsequently vetoed by the President and *spoiler alert* Yemen is still subject to U.S produced bombs, U.S backed starvation, & U.S approved cholera.

After this, along with years of calling the President all kinds of dangerous or reckless,did the Democrats in the House use any of their power to vote for a progressive amendment to the NDAA like removing funding for the U.S backing of the Saudis in Yemen, repealing the 2002 Authorization of Military Force, or even barring military action in Iran without Congressional approval???? No of course not. The Democratic leadership folded, not wanting to seem partisan or have to actually fight for something. And their reward for not causing any fight or struggle with Republicans/the White House was………you guessed it the deescalation/ assassination of a top Iranian General.

Side Note: Somehow there is controversy over whether this should be labeled an assassination because, even though Soleimani was a government representative, he was also a bad guy with blood on his hands. To anyone who thinks this I’ll simply leave this:

If Hitler could be assassinated, anyone can

Now if the Democrats were smart, they would use this situation to solve their latest fuck-up, impeachment. The great minds of Democratic leadership, and their top consultants, decided not to focus on the Mueller Report (obstruction of justice or the talks to build a Trump Tower Moscow well into the campaign) or the Emoluments Clause/Corruption (Trump still making money from his businesses) but chose to focus impeachment solely on an issue no actual human being gives a shit about, the all-sacred military aid to Ukraine. This brilliant focus has generated such incredible support across the spectrum that the articles of impeachment still haven’t been sent to the Senate. No need to question the genius of the Democratic leadership though, I’m sure there’s a good reason the articles haven’t been sent yet like they’re just doing an encore in the House or something like that.

The official line from the Trump administration was the strike was to prevent an imminent attack. However, Secretary of State Pompeo said that they didn’t know “what or when” the attack would take place. Former Republican Justin Amash and Republican Senator Mike Lee were both unhappy with the intelligence they were briefed on. The administration has gone on to contradict itself with Trump saying 4 embassies were being targeted which was subsequently dismissed by Trump’s own Defense Secretary. Later the President tweeted that while people were looking to prove whether there was an imminent attack that it “doesn’t really matter”. Now it seems fairly plausible that this imminent attack defense is a lie for 3 reasons. 1. The administration’s abundant history of lying, 2. The fact that the Secretary of State is claiming to not know what that attack was or when it was occurring (which seems important) and 3. the fact that if there was an imminent attack, killing Soleimani wouldn’t stop it unless he was carrying it out himself. So with everything we know so far, it seems like the Trump Administration didn’t act totally on fact or reality, shocking I know.

Now if the Democrats had any balls they would vote to impeach the President on this and sent all 3 articles over to the Senate. Get all the top people in the Senate to testify, under oath, and tell the American people what happened. Will this work? No it probably wouldn’t but is the Democrats current strategy gonna do any better? A second strategy could be to just punt impeachment all together and vote to censure Trump over the assassination of Suleimani and pass something attempting to take back their Constitutional authority over approving military action. The whole point of the impeachment seems to be that the President misused his office for personal gain but if they impeached him for this assassination as well they could send the message that not only is he misusing the office but is doing so in a dangerously reckless way.

I want to end this blog with a criminally under-discussed clip from Nancy Pelosi in an Impeachment Town Hall. This clip highlights the hypocrisy on display by Democratic leadership. Now her main argument for Impeachment surrounds Trump abusing his office, but in trying to make this point she states that back when she was Speaker of the House in 2006 she knew George Bush lied us into the Iraq War and she took impeachment off the table:

Pelosi Logic:
Lying the country into a Catastrophic War=not impeachable
Temporarily Withholding Aid for Political Dirt=impeachable

How Tom Steyer qualified for the debate

tldr

Since you clicked, I bet you’re wondering how Tom Steyer qualifyed for the next debate……….lucky for you it’s a pretty simple explanation.

Reason 1. Tom Steyer is spending $100 million dollars more than any other (non-billionaire) candidate on television ads.

Reason 2. He is the only non-Bloomberg candidate on air in Nevada & South Carolina (the states where he got the qualifying polls). He spent $8.7 Million in Nevada , & he has spent over $8 million in South Carolina, good for 85% of all spending there.

*Mandatory DNC Bashing Section*

So while Steyer buys his way onto the stage, other candidates like Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard or even Cory Booker will not be on the stage. Voting starts in less than a month, so why not let the voters decide who can continue their campaign, DNC? Even if you just said anyone not meeting your official qualifications will go to a JV debate, best case you get positive exposure for some other candidates that will be running non-presidential campaigns in the near future, worst case you rob people like John Delaney, Michael Bennet, or even Cory Booker the excuse their candidacy didn’t take off due to lack of exposure.

How the 2020 Candidates responded to the Soleimani Assassination

After the President killed one of the top military leaders in Iran, along with an Iraqi commander and several others, each of the candidate vying to replace Trump issued statements about the attack. Each statements gives insight not just to their foreign policy views but to them as a candidate so we’re gonna look at some of them looking for those clues.

Joe Biden

Full disclosure I fell asleep in the first paragraph of Joe’s statement but I’m sure it contained the obligatory “he was a bad guy” and talked about the need to come back to normalcy and that once Trump is gone people will come to their senses so all these crazy drone strikes will stop.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren put out a statement that was fairly standard politician speak talking about how Soleimani was a bad guy who without a plan this is bad escalation. Like a lot of Warren’s recent statements, she tried to please everyone and failed leading to a follow up that was more forceful.

Bernie Sanders

Like all statements by Bernie, he gave a long nuanced speech on this attack, being one of the only candidates to rightly call this an assassination. He talked about voting against the Iraq War and his history against these endless wars that have wasted trillions of dollars and countless amount of life. (What a broke record this guy is)

Pete Buttigieg

The mayor released a statement that focused on planning and his service. Like most of his statements or speeches you think “huh this sounds nice and eloquent” until you reach the end and realize he didn’t actually say anything or take a stand.

Marianne Williamson

I’m not gonna focus on any other candidates mostly cause they were boring/not funny but I thought Marianne gave one of the best responses of any politician. She rightly brought up how if Soleimani was really planning an attack why not stop the attack itself instead of killing him which will cause a retaliatory attack (and seemingly negate the whole reason for this). She also brings up how many people we have killed, which I think applies to people in our country as well as people we’ve sent to die for pointless wars.

Analyzing the Soleimani assassination

2020 got started with a bang when President Trump launched a strike killing one of the most important military figures in Iran, Qasem Soleimani, along with an Iraqi commander and several other people. Now don’t expect any real analysis on this as I don’t think anyone in the world knows what’s going to happen now, especially an idiot blogger like myself. Now Trump and his allies are claiming this was to prevent an “imminent” attack on the U.S. We’ll have to wait for evidence to see if that’s the case. I will just point out that this “justification” is *extreme movie trailer voice* from the people/agencies that brought you Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and the Bay of Pigs. You may also know their work if you live in South America or Southeast Asia.

In responding to the attack there was a lot of chest beating by people looking to hide their deep seated insecurity/cowardice along with condemnation by Democrats who not only voted to give Trump more money for the military but also cheerleaded all of Obama’s drone strikes and imperialism. The 2020 Democratic candidates also released statements and most of them were boring with an obligatory “he was a bad guy” and that this was bad because the administration has no plan. Now somebody get the Pinocchio boys over at the Washington Post to fact check me on this one but Soleimani was not the only bad guy in the world let alone the only one with American blood on his hands. It seems to me that if you really wanted to go after bad people with blood on their hands you would first look to people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, hell even Barack Obama. If that’s too far then why not settle for the people responsible for the opioid crisis. I can guarantee it would’ve cost a whole less to go after the Sacklers than to assassinate a foreign general. (Sidenote: It’s so funny that nobody in the media asks the costs of things that kill people but god forbid someone wants to give people health care or tuition free college then all of a sudden everyone starts clutching their pearls in horror over the costs).

Long Live American Imperialism *USA, USA, USA*