BREAKING Munich (apparent) terrorist attack

[AWRTR]

I've said before that when the party goes down the road of "Oh, well, he (or she) has been a loyal party member for X years, so we owe it to him to let him run."
Republicans with Dole in 1996, Hillary in 2016, and Biden in 2024.

After the 2022 mid-terms it was time for the party to go to Biden and say, "You set out to beat Trump and you did beat him, but your decline makes it necessary to turn the page and open the Democratic primaries to a real competition for the job."
The party and the country would have been better served by that policy.
By waiting until July 2024, campaign finance law wed the Democrats to Kamala Harris. If the Democrats had had a real open competition starting in December 2022, I am not convinced she would have been the candidate.

Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT)

I couldn't believe he didn't step aside. I kept waiting for it right after the midterms. He could have rode off into the sunset saying he did his job and knocked Trump out.

I am convinced Harris would have been soundly beaten in a real open primary. I don't know who would have gotten the nomination, but it wouldn't have been her. The candidate would have possibly been further left, but a better communicator and politician.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Quite frankly I can fault the Dems as much as the Repubs for Trump's election. Their ineptitude in governing and in putting forth viable candidates enabled the Repubs to soar to victory. Now we are reaping the whirlwind and it is not pretty.

I can defend the Democrats on this UP TO A POINT.

In 2020, they were eminently responsible and, in all honesty, likely nominated the only candidate in their field with a puncher's chance of beating Trump (and even then, Trump wins without the pandemic). The Democrats, for all their flaws, have put up responsible choices for their candidates (prior to 2024) every election post-1972.

But my problem is still WHAT EXACTLY were the Democrats SUPPOSED to do (except, I'll grant this, lie and attack anyone who suggested Biden was not all there? The marriage of convenience with the legacy media helped destroy both of them).

Remember when Biden was working deals with the unions and car manufacturers in the fall of 2023? If he resigns after the midterms, does anyone have ANY confidence in Harris to pull that off? And he needed union votes in the Rust Belt, so it looked good. At the exact same time, the GOP frontrunner is facing court cases and losing.

In February 2024, Biden had a slight popular vote lead over Trump in most polls (he led by six in Quinnipiac). By March, it was tied. It was a dead heat in April and Trump had a lead within the MOE in May, just as we headed towards the conclusion of a court case that - in a normal world - would have spelled the end of his candidacy.

Then came the June debate, and we all know what happened.

Biden was gonna win because abortion was gonna save the day - even though anyone who had ever paid attention to the issue should have known better.

He was gonna win because the economy was doing great - the numbers said so.

He was gonna win because "this country will never have another Republican President again due to shifting demographics."

He was gonna win because Trump was a felon.

The biggest issue of all is this: a 78-year-old man running in 2020 should have taken more seriously his selection of a Vice-Presidential running mate instead of filling on DEI boxes to soothe feelings. If he had had someone else in that spot who could have believably taken over and had political street smarts, the Democrats MIGHT possibly have won or at least regained the House.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I can defend the Democrats on this UP TO A POINT.

In 2020, they were eminently responsible and, in all honesty, likely nominated the only candidate in their field with a puncher's chance of beating Trump (and even then, Trump wins without the pandemic). The Democrats, for all their flaws, have put up responsible choices for their candidates (prior to 2024) every election post-1972.

But my problem is still WHAT EXACTLY were the Democrats SUPPOSED to do (except, I'll grant this, lie and attack anyone who suggested Biden was not all there? The marriage of convenience with the legacy media helped destroy both of them).

Remember when Biden was working deals with the unions and car manufacturers in the fall of 2023? If he resigns after the midterms, does anyone have ANY confidence in Harris to pull that off? And he needed union votes in the Rust Belt, so it looked good. At the exact same time, the GOP frontrunner is facing court cases and losing.

In February 2024, Biden had a slight popular vote lead over Trump in most polls (he led by six in Quinnipiac). By March, it was tied. It was a dead heat in April and Trump had a lead within the MOE in May, just as we headed towards the conclusion of a court case that - in a normal world - would have spelled the end of his candidacy.

Then came the June debate, and we all know what happened.

Biden was gonna win because abortion was gonna save the day - even though anyone who had ever paid attention to the issue should have known better.

He was gonna win because the economy was doing great - the numbers said so.

He was gonna win because "this country will never have another Republican President again due to shifting demographics."

He was gonna win because Trump was a felon.

The biggest issue of all is this: a 78-year-old man running in 2020 should have taken more seriously his selection of a Vice-Presidential running mate instead of filling on DEI boxes to soothe feelings. If he had had someone else in that spot who could have believably taken over and had political street smarts, the Democrats MIGHT possibly have won or at least regained the House.

Your last paragraph raises an interesting point, along with some corollary issues.

I agree that Harris was a poor choice, made only after Biden essentially said, "Men, especially white ones, need not apply." The first clue that his Democratic primary platform as a uniter wasn't going to hold into the general election

Even today, the party truly doesn't understand why they lost to such an incredibly beatable Republican who also just happens to be a horrendous human being. Other than Manchin and lately Fetterman, I can't think of anyone in Democratic party leadership who doesn't kneel at the altar of the far left and spout all the shibboleths.

They don't have to do that to win. Moreover, it's what's keeping them from winning at a national level. Yet they continue to double (and triple and quadruple) down.

Forever calling for unity yet preaching the very identity politics that divide the country. Then picking their own minority groups to hate on -- Jews and Asians, anyone? Latching onto ludicrous positions so hard they'd humble pit bulls and snapping turtles. Transgender women who went through male puberty in women's sports even down to high school girl's sports, unrestricted abortion well past fetal viability, trumpeting oh-so-correct trivia like mandating tampons in boys' bathrooms.

Hurling insults at anyone who disagrees with them -- racist, misogynist, fascist, moron redneck, deplorable, beneath contempt. Yeah, that'll win 'em over to our side.

Then stage a protest at the SOTU speech that looked like an Upper East Side prep school SGA dreamed it up.

Outside of southeastern New York, coastal California, Oregon, Massachusetts and a few other places, this is what you're going to win on? Even reliably liberal media are calling garbage on it and asking for a strategy that includes action.

And not one of their leaders will repudiate this stuff. James Carville has an immensely creative word for it that I can't post on Tidefans (I don't agree with him a lot, but the man can flat use the English language).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Your last paragraph raises an interesting point, along with some corollary issues.

I agree that Harris was a poor choice, made only after Biden essentially said, "Men, especially white ones, need not apply." The first clue that his Democratic primary platform as a uniter wasn't going to hold into the general election

Even today, the party truly doesn't understand why they lost to such an incredibly beatable Republican who also just happens to be a horrendous human being. Other than Manchin and lately Fetterman, I can't think of anyone in Democratic party leadership who doesn't kneel at the altar of the far left and spout all the shibboleths.

They, in essence, ran off a bisexual Senator (Krysten Sinema of Arizona) because she wouldn't completely toe the line on every issue - in her case, refusal to abolish the filibuster, which now she's gone and those same folks who pressured her are glad the filibuster isn't.

I've mentioned here previously - and this is just a hunch - that when Biden said he was going to choose a woman in order to pre-empt the Warren and Bernie campaigns, I SUSPECT the choice he had in mind was Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar. Unlike most of her liberal brothers and sisters, Klobuchar was not on the front lines of "defund the police" and was the most outspoken about KEEPING PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE alternatives alive.

And then George Floyd was killed.
In the city where Klobuchar (the white woman) had been the prosecutor years previously.
And now Biden was cornered.

Instead of changing his tune - as if the "disappointed women" were going to go vote for TRUMP - he made a bad situation worse by choosing a woman who all but said the words, "Biden is a racist" in their first debate. And who failed to follow-up that knockout on the stage with anything but word salads.

They don't have to do that to win. Moreover, it's what's keeping them from winning at a national level. Yet they continue to double (and triple and quadruple) down.

Forever calling for unity yet preaching the very identity politics that divide the country. Then picking their own minority groups to hate on -- Jews and Asians, anyone? Latching onto ludicrous positions so hard they'd humble pit bulls and snapping turtles. Transgender women who went through male puberty in women's sports even down to high school girl's sports, unrestricted abortion well past fetal viability, trumpeting oh-so-correct trivia like mandating tampons in boys' bathrooms.

No argument here.

That said, Trump has sorta done the same thing with "white identity politics." Difference is, he's smart enough to backtrack and be seen with his best black friends, etc.

Hurling insults at anyone who disagrees with them -- racist, misogynist, fascist, moron redneck, deplorable, beneath contempt. Yeah, that'll win 'em over to our side.

What has never made sense to me is this: "this country has always been racist and sexist."

Uh - then what did you think you were doing nominating a black woman??????

 

[Tidewater]

What has never made sense to me is this: "this country has always been racist and sexist."

Uh - then what did you think you were doing nominating a black woman??????

As with any debate, you have to define your terms.
If by "always been a sexist racist country" you mean "a country in which there were and still are sexists and racists who will hold a person's sex or race against them," then most would agree.
If you mean "a country in which sexism and racism prevents a black person or women from succeeding," then most would differ.
The problem is that in most public discussion on sex and race, we switch between one definition and the other with alarming ease.

This country has had a black president (elected twice), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, SECDEF, SECSTATE, Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, etc. And the US has had a woman hold every one of those except SECDEF and President.
If someone really believes the latter definition, then no way you nominate a black woman for any office.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

If by "always been a sexist racist country" you mean "a country in which there were and still are sexists and racists who will hold a person's sex or race against them," then most would agree.
If you mean "a country in which sexism and racism prevents a black person or women from succeeding," then most would differ.
The problem is that in most public discussion on sex and race, we switch between one definition and the other with alarming ease.

There are dozens of examples that could be used, of course, but a similar type of "shifting the meaning" occurred in the OJ Simpson case. (It has also occurred in the "Russian interference" narrative - YES, Russia bombarded Facebook, etc, to influence the outcome of the 2016 election; NO, they did not "steal the election" for Trump).

When the OJ trial was ongoing, I would watch (it was usually blacks but yes, some whites, too) folks somehow decide that cops beating Rodney King in 1992 translated into "cops framed a famous black guy for murder" two years later, as if those two things are close to being the same. WHITE POLICE BRUTALITY and in particular in Los Angeles against blacks has an easily provable long history; FRAMING INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR MURDER - particularly rich celebrities - just doesn't have a lot of evidence supporting it in modern times. I'm not denying there haven't been instances where some cop planted drugs to take down some black guy, using "the end justifies the means, but I don't have actual proof", I'm sure there have been. I won't even deny there have been framings for murder. But in MODERN TIMES of FAMOUS PEOPLE? It just doesn't happen. (I wonder how many people know that the cop who went to OJ's house for a domestic violence issue between him and his then new wife, Nicole, in 1985 didn't even fill out a report - his name? Mark Fuhrman).

But the idea the LAPD "framed" OJ Simpson before they even knew if he had an ironclad alibi should have been laughed out of court.

I've been on the receiving end - I'm sure most folks, right or left on this board have - more than once of "because slavery/Jim Crow/Mississippi Burning went on in the south over 100s of years, you, Southerner, are by definition racist" by people who have barely even met me.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Back on topic - almost nothing has been said about this car attack in Mannheim in the last couple of days since it happened.

 

[Tidewater]

Back on topic - almost nothing has been said about this car attack in Mannheim in the last couple of days since it happened.

I have not. I suppose that means he was just crazy, so the story is a tragedy, but not that interesting or does not advance any agenda (other than mental health care, but I would bet Germany is probably pretty good on that score).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Another car drove itself into another crowd in Germany.

Poor Abdul, victim of Nazis.



A van plowed into a crowd at Berlin’s biggest LGBTQ+ event late on Saturday, killing one person and wounding 16, with a police manhunt now underway for the suspected attacker.

Police said the van drove into people walking in the Tiergarten park in the center of the German capital, next to where thousands had gathered to celebrate the Pride event.

The suspect was known to police “as a member of Islamic circles” in Berlin, the Associated Press reported, citing a police spokesman, who did not specify the nature of those Islamic circles. CNN has reached out to Berlin police to ask if the attack is being treated as an act of terrorism.

Witnesses described hearing “a dull bang” as chaos erupted at Tiergarten, next to the route that the Pride march had passed along earlier.

Police said a van drove through the park shortly before 10 p.m. and hit several people. It was later found crashed into a tree and abandoned.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

ISIS and other radical groups have been urging vehicular homicide for a number of years now. Easier to get than guns...

 

[CrimsonJazz]

ISIS and other radical groups have been urging vehicular homicide for a number of years now. Easier to get than guns...

I wonder how long it will take for calls to end car ownership to start cropping up since its apparently not okay to blame the perp or discuss who he is, what he is and where he came from.

 

[crimsonaudio]

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Don’t look now, what one of the usual suspects accidentally got it right for once.

Now just make it more succinct:
Muslim kills gay(s) by hitting with van

 

[AWRTR]

Don’t look now, what one of the usual suspects accidentally got it right for once.

Now just make it more succinct:
Muslim kills gay(s) by hitting with van

View attachment 58134

I'm absolutely fascinated by the support for radical Islam that is coming from the Far Left in the US and Europe. Does the far left not understand that they are committing suicide? If radical Islam rose to power in these places, and by that I mean the type of governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the very people that support them would be the first ones they oppress. It is the definition of suicidal empathy.

 

[JDCrimson]

I'm absolutely fascinated by the support for radical Islam that is coming from the Far Left in the US and Europe. Does the far left not understand that they are committing suicide? If radical Islam rose to power in these places, and by that I mean the type of governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the very people that support them would be the first ones they oppress. It is the definition of suicidal empathy.

We should embrace Christianity in its proper belief, Protestant or Catholic. And not endorse Judaism, which is NOT Christianity, or Islam. Its utterly foolish for any of us gentiles to get involved in their Holy War that has went on for 4000 years.

Mossad is so effective let them infiltrate the IRGC hierarchy and take them out.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I'm absolutely fascinated by the support for radical Islam that is coming from the Far Left in the US and Europe. Does the far left not understand that they are committing suicide? If radical Islam rose to power in these places, and by that I mean the type of governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the very people that support them would be the first ones they oppress. It is the definition of suicidal empathy.

Again, watching folks who can somehow see cognitive dissonance in Trump supporters BUT NOT "Q" for Palestine - they're either insanely dumb, deviously pretentious, or just dishonest snakes to be honest with ya.

But my goodness, isn't it the rule rather than the exception?

They estimate between 10 and 14% of Bernie's voters VOTED FOR TRUMP.
I mean, does that make any sense in a normal world unless your goal is "burn it down"?

The protesters at the 1968 Democratic Convention were made at LBJ and Humphrey. OK, I get it. They were also Port Huron Statement liberals. Given Humphrey and Nixon were basically going to pursue similar policies after the election, wouldn't it have made more sense to throw in with Humphrey - yeah, you still got war, but you can get some programs. I mean, is this really all that hard?

Look at the Maine liberals who had a WELL QUALIFIED woman running for the Democratic Senate nomination in a year Susan Collins is vulnerable and it MIGHT make the difference between control of the US Senate. Janet Mills served four two-year terms in the Maine House, was the state's Attorney General TWICE, and is an incumbent two-term governor. She's a lawyer, a former nursing assistant, a native born Mainer, and while she's a traditional liberal, she's soft of any form of gun control, which is how you win in Maine.

This incredible back story and a FEMALE LAWYER who could have made the case against Collins on the trigger issue of abortion/Kavanaugh, and the clowns in the party primary decided, "No, we don't want her. We want the guy with the Nazi tattoo, the racist posting history, the checkered sexual history, and a fake back story!" I mean, you would have gotten about the same votes nationally but without a loose cannon who clearly suffered from PTSD and being a LIAR.

Look at conservatives who actually think Donald Trump is one. He's spent his entire life as a clown living on credit and all I get is "he's a successful businessman" from people who I know have to know better.

Trump is a 1980s northeastern liberal Democrat, and he's hijacked the GOP, who has decided Stockholm Syndrome is preferable to being able to look yourself in the mirror. His battle plan for Iran is as inept as Carter's rescue plan for Iran was. But if Cyrus Vance had told Trump, "This is a bad idea, and I'm resigning," Trump would have insulted him from one side of the universe to the other before the first attack.

 

[Huckleberry]

Trump is a 1980s northeastern liberal Democrat

I agree with everything else you said, but I'm curious about this assertion. Trump is certainly not a Reagan conversative, but his recent actions strike me as right-wing populist much more than a Cuomo or O'Neill (or even a Moynihan) liberal. I think all of those guys would have vehemently disagreed with most of Trump's agenda, even if he wasn't a lying, narcissistic, moronic jerk.

 

[JDCrimson]

Again, watching folks who can somehow see cognitive dissonance in Trump supporters BUT NOT "Q" for Palestine - they're either insanely dumb, deviously pretentious, or just dishonest snakes to be honest with ya.

But my goodness, isn't it the rule rather than the exception?

They estimate between 10 and 14% of Bernie's voters VOTED FOR TRUMP.
I mean, does that make any sense in a normal world unless your goal is "burn it down"?

The protesters at the 1968 Democratic Convention were made at LBJ and Humphrey. OK, I get it. They were also Port Huron Statement liberals. Given Humphrey and Nixon were basically going to pursue similar policies after the election, wouldn't it have made more sense to throw in with Humphrey - yeah, you still got war, but you can get some programs. I mean, is this really all that hard?

Look at the Maine liberals who had a WELL QUALIFIED woman running for the Democratic Senate nomination in a year Susan Collins is vulnerable and it MIGHT make the difference between control of the US Senate. Janet Mills served four two-year terms in the Maine House, was the state's Attorney General TWICE, and is an incumbent two-term governor. She's a lawyer, a former nursing assistant, a native born Mainer, and while she's a traditional liberal, she's soft of any form of gun control, which is how you win in Maine.

This incredible back story and a FEMALE LAWYER who could have made the case against Collins on the trigger issue of abortion/Kavanaugh, and the clowns in the party primary decided, "No, we don't want her. We want the guy with the Nazi tattoo, the racist posting history, the checkered sexual history, and a fake back story!" I mean, you would have gotten about the same votes nationally but without a loose cannon who clearly suffered from PTSD and being a LIAR.

Look at conservatives who actually think Donald Trump is one. He's spent his entire life as a clown living on credit and all I get is "he's a successful businessman" from people who I know have to know better.

Trump is a 1980s northeastern liberal Democrat, and he's hijacked the GOP, who has decided Stockholm Syndrome is preferable to being able to look yourself in the mirror. His battle plan for Iran is as inept as Carter's rescue plan for Iran was. But if Cyrus Vance had told Trump, "This is a bad idea, and I'm resigning," Trump would have insulted him from one side of the universe to the other before the first attack.

In a duel, usually you are supposed to shoot the other person not yourself...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I agree with everything else you said, but I'm curious about this assertion. Trump is certainly not a Reagan conversative, but his recent actions strike me as right-wing populist much more than a Cuomo or O'Neill (or even a Moynihan) liberal. I think all of those guys would have vehemently disagreed with most of Trump's agenda, even if he wasn't a lying, narcissistic, moronic jerk.

I’ll explain this maybe tomorrow, my night tech has called in and so I have to go in early for coverage.

Typing too fast and I should not have used the word liberal.

But yes, Trump is largely a 1980s northeastern Democrat, but with a populist twist where we have to be careful to not singularly categorize him in the way I did irresponsibly.

I’ve made this point before, but probably not here, but I’ll lay it out either tomorrow or the next day if I wind up pulling a heavy day tomorrow.

No, he’s not Mario Cuomo, and the way I said it was about like people who say George Wallace was conservative and don’t bother to look at his actual record beyond the populist rhetoric. Thanks

 

[Bamaro]

I’ll explain this maybe tomorrow, my night tech has called in and so I have to go in early for coverage.

Typing too fast and I should not have used the word liberal.

But yes, Trump is largely a 1980s northeastern Democrat, but with a populist twist where we have to be careful to not singularly categorize him in the way I did irresponsibly.

I’ve made this point before, but probably not here, but I’ll lay it out either tomorrow or the next day if I wind up pulling a heavy day tomorrow.

No, he’s not Mario Cuomo, and the way I said it was about like people who say George Wallace was conservative and don’t bother to look at his actual record beyond the populist rhetoric. Thanks

Trying to define what trump represents is about as easy as hearding a group of cats