If you are wondering who exactly is Hasan Piker and why the Republicans are giddy that Abdul El-Sayed won the U.S. Senate Dem. Primary in Michigan...

Piker not only endorsed El-Sayed but campaigned WITH him.

You see, candidates who want to disassociate themselves with radicals do not invite them to campaign with them.

Just ask Barack Obama.

When Obama first ran for public office, domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn hosted the first meet-and-greet for him. (Ayers had even dedicated his book to Sirham Sirham, the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's assassin.)

And then there was Obama's one-time good friend and pastor. Surely you remember his hate-filled speech?

[media=https://youtu.be/Vy6lFFaX0nQ]

But did you see Obama invite Ayers, Dohrn or the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. to go on the campaign trail with him?

HELL NO!

Because Obama had the brains to know what would happen to his election prospects if he had.

[media=https://youtu.be/ekGnjkVe-nE]

But what WOULD have happened is exactly what WILL happen to El-Sayed's campaign. Tens of millions of dollars in ads showing El-Sayed with Piker, some with the children or parents of dead Americans reacting to it. And when El-Sayed goes down so, too, will the hopes of a Democrat-majority in the Senate to stop that fascist dictator in the White House.

And what is it that Piker said, you ask?

[media=https://youtu.be/qSYVXXCFkAg]

Top | New | Old

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

That depends on how much America cares though before it might have mattered but now you are looking at so much strife and instability that people might not care as much as you think. In reality, not voting for progressives is going to crash the economy if they keep it going. So it hardly matters.

I'm a policy driven individual and Abdul wants to limit the Supreme Court, as do I. If I was in Michigan, I'd likely vote because he wants to set clear limits which is what we should do

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@SatanBurger I'll agree with the first part of this. As to SCOTUS, there's now only one way out. I don't like it, yet there's no choice but to increase the numbers in the supreme Court.

This really should be handled through another constitutional amendment. Perhaps limiting the life time membership. Yet that's not the only way to handle such a constitutional amendment.

Yet it's impossible to do any such constitutional amendment. That is as well dependant on the States themselves. Not just a ⅔rds majority either.

You can't limit the supreme Court without a constitutional amendment though.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

The problem was the language. Not the facts though.

Obama was a good orator and a good dipolmat. I'll admit that. Yet Obama was insanely positive about what has, historically, as well what is currently, going on.

You don't go in either direction. Admit to the past. Admit to what is going on. Don't hide behind it with either platitudes, nor rude language and dramatics.

This false recognition in any way, positively or negatively, can't serve anyone in politics. Look at Trump for the negative as well

Either way presents a false narrative.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

Toward the end of Obama's second term, Democrats developed an unsurpassed talent for shooting themselves in the foot.

View 1 more replies »

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@beckyromero

Followed by a second Trump presidency after the thoroughly bungled Biden-Harris administration.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@Thinkerbell

Had Hillary won in 2016 (perhaps with Biden as VP or Obama), she would have handled Covid much better than Trump. We would have came out of Covid stronger. Iran? She wouldn't have wasted political capital on Venezuela. If the decision to strike Iran was made, it would have been WITHOUT Israel's help. It would have focused on what SHOULD be the goal: stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

There would have been no impeachment #1 because she wouldn't have played an extortion game with Ukraine. That war would probably be over by now because Ukraine would have gotten much more weaponry sooner. (yeah, yeah, go on about the reset button, but that was all OBAMA, not Hillary. The president sets foreign policy, not SecState).

I would hope that eights years as VP would have made Obama a better candidate - and president should he have won in 2024. Perhaps more left of center instead of just left.

As for Republicans? I think if Trump had gone down in flames in 2016, he's done. Perhaps Jeb gives it another shot in 2020 or waits until 2024 at age 71. Ted Cruz is probably in the mix. Kasich, I doubt it.

I remember some young woman whining in an interview in 2016 that for most of her life it was always Clinton or Bush, or Clinton v. Bush. She wanted something different. Be careful of what you wish for - you might get it.

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@beckyromero

???

Obama could not have been Hillary's VP in 2016.

Did you mean Hillary being President in 2008 with Obama or Biden as VP? In that case, she would not have been in office for Covid.

Add a comment...