Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Bernie supported the 1979 Embassy takeover

  1. Top | #21
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,445
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,131
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Hahaha, good one. I was actually talking about Iran-Contra.
    Yeah, me too.
    No, it's not a derail at all. It's about the falsity of guilt by association.
    Once would have been enough, but you keep harping on Alex Jones.

    And whether guilt by association depends on closeness of association. In the 70s and 80s Bernie was affiliated with SWP, which makes this fair game I think. Very different than say paying off hostage takers.

    Clearly, you just want to throw support to your own candidate
    I don't have a candidate. All of them have pros and cons, including Bernie. Hell, I was accused of being a "Bernie Bro" in another thread because I defended him.

    If you actually want to have an honest conversation, I will freely admit I worry about Bernie's chances right now. Yup, it's true. I can see that CNN is more closely aligned to mainstream Democratic Party as well as the Daily Beast. As soon as Bernie took the lead, he's gotten all kind of attacks. I don't know if it's Bloomberg's connection to media, Warren made a secret survivor-style deal with Biden, Trump, or a combination of actors. However, I suspect that shills and payoffs are being orchestrated by Trump to sow division among his competition. All the negativity will be gathered and repeated in the general and his back room dealings extend to working with anyone, even Dershowitz.
    You lost me with Derschowitz conspiracy theories, but yes, I do think DNC will do whatever they can to prevent a Bernie nomination. So unless his support gets really overwhelming, he will not be the nominee.

    While this particular hit-piece is illogical, it's inconsequential. The corporate and conservative media are strong.
    Mainstream media like CNN, NY Times or WaPo are left-of-center but they are much more comfortable with the likes of Warren rather than Bernie.
    But they also like the horserace, and thus will likely talk up whoever is most likely to prevent Biden to run away with it. At least for a while.

    Bernie will be destroyed by the onslaught eventually.
    Probably. There are plenty of other skeletons in his closet I am sure.

    But they will also label whatever Democrat is left as a communist who wants to take your money and guns and has no plan for your security.
    Who is this "they"? Again, mainstream media will go for the Democrat over Trump.

    The biggest difference with Bernie is that here and now he can say, "Yeah, so what? I AM a socialist." He doesn't have to quibble or give a half-assed answer about special rules of when to fight in the Middle East because his principles actually make sense.
    His principle in the Middle East is to leave it to Russia and Iran. It is to take away military aid to Israel and give it to Hamas instead. How does it "make sense"?
    You need more complex rules about foreign policy because foreign policy IS COMPLICATED. Any simplistic rule will not work, as Trump himself found out after he pledged to take US troops out of Middle East himself.

    Nor does he have to give a half-assed answer about healthcare (except when CNN asks a loaded debate question).
    He can't adequately explain how he would pay for it.

    He can speak directly to the economics of swing state voters about their true enemy. In swing state areas, his message is popular. It is something needed right now .
    I agree parts of his message are very popular, particularly in the areas of the country that have suffered from the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector. '

    (whether you want to do Trump's dirty work for him or not)
    Note that Trump ran on many of the same issues that Bernie ran on. However, his implementation, such as the whole tariff clusterfuck was completely incompetent.

    A Trump-Bernie race would be interesting in nothing else. Too bad it will never happen.

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,990
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,731
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    I am going to add something very unpopular here. I understand there will be backlash but no one else will say it because it's too politically incorrect.

    The position alleged to be held by some prominent individuals in the Socialist Workers Party that many of the hostages in the Iran hostage crisis were spies was plausible.
    Of course it is plausible that some embassy employees work for CIA under diplomatic cover. As they say in those Geico commercials, "everybody knows that". But that doesn't mean that all or most are CIA. And it certainly doesn't justify a foreign country invading and occupying an embassy and taking embassy personnel hostage.
    I did not say it did. Neither did Sanders.

    Look at the hitpiece more closely. From the introductory summary:
    "...but also justified the hostage taking by insisting the hostages were all likely CIA agents. Who was that person? It was Bernie Sanders. "

    Summary claims:
    1. Bernie Sanders thought all the hostages were CIA agents.
    2. Doing so is eqivalent to justifying the hostage taking.

    The second claim (2) is false but probably a popular thing to say. Technically, it is not a logical deduction.

    As for the first claim (1) it is very much also not supported and hyperbole. Apparently, the evidence later in the article is that some other guy named Pulley said, "we can be sure that many of them are simply spies… or people assigned to protect the spies." He did not say ALL but instead "many." He also did not say it justified the taking of the hostages. If he did it would have been quotemined like the rest of the article. Pulley of course had support by Bernie to speak at a university but it in no way means Pulley and Bernie had the same opinion.

    Even if they did it does not follow that Bernie supported the hostage taking.

    If it did, then so do you Derec, because just like Pulley the mad communist, you just conceded that some were spies.
    *crickets*

  3. Top | #23
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    11,990
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    12,697
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    So Sanders didn’t back the hostage takers, he backed the people who defended the hostage takers?
    Transitive property of supporting evil regimes.
    Doesn't bother you much in other cases.

    Kim, MBS, Xi, Duterte et al
    I guess you find it more palatable when it's really really REALLY overt, and coming from someone who is in power.
    Oh - and a right wing extremist - that makes it okay.

  4. Top | #24
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,445
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,131
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    I guess you find it more palatable when it's really really REALLY overt, and coming from someone who is in power.
    Oh - and a right wing extremist - that makes it okay.
    Wrong, as I am not a Trump supporter. But nice try at whataboutism.

  5. Top | #25
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,445
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    32,131
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    If it did, then so do you Derec, because just like Pulley the mad communist, you just conceded that some were spies.
    What do you mean "concede"? Everybody knows that there are "legal spies" working under diplomatic cover. Unlike the mad communist, I do not think that gives the weird beards a justification to invade and occupy the US embassy.

    I see that you are trying to downplay the connection of Sanders and Pulley/SWP in the 70s and 80s. But that won't work. Bernie endorsed and campaigned for Pulley during his presidential run in 1980 and did the same for another SWP candidate in 1984. He even was one of Pulley's three Vermont electors!
    Bernie Sanders campaigned for Marxist party in Reagan era

  6. Top | #26
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    10,332
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,776
    Rep Power
    72
    Why do you keep calling them "weird beards"? Their beards are the most normal thing about them.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,990
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,731
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    If it did, then so do you Derec, because just like Pulley the mad communist, you just conceded that some were spies.
    What do you mean "concede"? Everybody knows that there are "legal spies" working under diplomatic cover. Unlike the mad communist, I do not think that gives the weird beards a justification to invade and occupy the US embassy.

    I see that you are trying to downplay the connection of Sanders and Pulley/SWP in the 70s and 80s. But that won't work. Bernie endorsed and campaigned for Pulley during his presidential run in 1980 and did the same for another SWP candidate in 1984. He even was one of Pulley's three Vermont electors!
    Bernie Sanders campaigned for Marxist party in Reagan era
    Once again, for the third time now:
    That doesn't mean he supported everything he said. Even if Bernie did, Pulley only said many were spies. Saying many are spies is not defending hostage taking. Even someone like you admitted some were spies. So do I. And the facts show that the CIA WAS involved, though they magnified their importance, in the overthrow of the Iranian govt using spies. But just like you and I admitting this, neither one of us supports the hostage taking that took place. Therefore, once again your whole op hit-piece falls apart.

  8. Top | #28
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    25,999
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,751
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    I am going to add something very unpopular here. I understand there will be backlash but no one else will say it because it's too politically incorrect.

    The position alleged to be held by some prominent individuals in the Socialist Workers Party that many of the hostages in the Iran hostage crisis were spies was plausible. Using diplomats and the cover of embassies is just something that governments do on occassion. And in a case where a foreign embassy supports one group over another in the domestic locale, there is a strong likelihood that some countries would engage in interventions or at a minimum information gathering for that purpose. This tactic was probably especially prevalent during the Cold War by both the US and USSR but also extends to modern times.
    So what? Everyone knows some diplomats are spies. When you identify who is the spy you either decide to leave them in place but watched (it's often better to watch a spy than stop him) or throw them out. You don't take them hostage, period.

  9. Top | #29
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,990
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    26,731
    Rep Power
    71
    So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.

  10. Top | #30
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    16,612
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    19,646
    Rep Power
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    So now Loren also agrees with Pulley from the SWP that some were spies. Loren, Derec, Pulley and I agree. So does the available documentation. This proves that saying so is not an endorsement of the hostage takers.
    Yeah, this thread is just character assassination.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •