I’ve not said anything that even borders on conspiracy theory. It seems like you just throw that label at anything you don’t, or don’t want to, understand.

Former Presidents typically have tremendous influence in their parties. Biden went from near the back of the pack to a clear first place on one super Tuesday due in large part to Obama’s influence. Every establishment friendly candidate dropped out on the same day and endorsed Biden due to deals made or brokered by Obama. Likewise, in 2016, Hillary had the machinery of the DNC behind her candidacy long before the primary even began. Leadership in the DNC, DCCC, and a myriad of other organizations that collectively make up the Democratic party is chosen largely through back room deals and endorsements. Then there are the lobiests, Democratic consultants, and wealthy interests who all benefit from their relationships with former presidents. Soft power may be difficult to nail down, but is undeniably a huge driver of Democratic leadership.

It’s weird that you ignore the power balance, and all the other credible accusations. LOL, yeah, his friendship with Epstein looks bad. I never said it was proof of anything, but it strains credulity to think that he wasn’t involved. It’s also politics, so we need Democrats with better judgement.

You still seem to think I’m making a both sides argument and trying to draw some equivalence. My point is that Democrats are unnecessarily burdening themselves by tacitly excusing bad behavior from it’s leadership. The Republicans are shit from top to bottom. Democrats have other choices.

Clinton is irrelevant in the national conversation. He is not irrelevant in Democratic leadership.

Epstein was connected with plenty of people from both parties, and in ways that implicate, not just associate. Bill is just the biggest example. There is no vast conspiracy to bury the story, but rather a tacit understanding in mainstream media that this story is radioactive and best left alone. Better Democrats wouldn’t have put us in this position.

Also relevant is the fact that Biden appears to have steered almost entirely clear of such scandal over a very long career, and he gets full credit for that. I am only aware of one purported incident, and there is enough room for doubt in it that I would defer to his otherwise clean record. Between Biden and Trump, it’s damn clear who is better. It’s just too bad that Biden is hampered in benefitting from that by a history of scandal he has nothing to do with.

That’s the whole goal of the “both sides” attack, for those who do actually deploy it. It takes an issue that people might actually care about and makes it irrelevant. A Republican that cares has no reason to abandon a sexual predator to vote for another. (Or in Hillary’s case a supporter of a sexual predator.)

Also, if anything, the attitude of the Democratic party towards Bill Clinton indicates that Democrats don’t care about sexual crimes. I don’t think it’s really that simple though.

It’s how Trump dulled the impact of the “grab 'em by the pussy” tape.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/donald-trump-juanita-broaddrick-paula-jones-facebook-live-2016-election/index.html

Stop criticizing the democrats.

No.

They’ve done nothing to wrong you.

They put us in the position we are in today.

A weapon to destroy Trump is lying on the table TODAY and it isn’t being picked up because of that old news. That is why it’s relevant TODAY. Deride it as a conspiracy theory if you want, but it’s not the first time Bill Clinton’s dick has saved Trump in an election.

I wish. Unlike the Republicans (and apparently a lot of Democrats) I think that there should be consequences for rapists without regard for what party they belong to.

Fuck that “BoTh SiDeS” whining. I said no such thing. However, Bill Clinton is almost as connected to Epstein as Trump, and that’s just a matter of public record. How is it that everyone seems to forget that he stuck it in a Whitehouse Intern? Whatever else Bill Clinton is, he is a slime ball, but he is still in the bubble of people protected by the Democratic party. There are political consequences to that, whether you want to accept it or not.

You want to offer an alternative theory about why the press and Democrats aren’t all over this story? They can’t seem to campaign on anything but how truly shitty Trump is, but they ignore this? Make it make sense.

How strange. It’s political gold and the Democrats are just ignoring it. It’s almost like a prominent Democrat might be vulnerable.

Hint: Rhymes with Bill Clinton

The link.

Thank God the Daily Boulder is covering this.

Biden isn’t pro genocide, at least there is no evidence to say that. The Biden administration has been against the ground invasion from the start.

Biden has made some missteps in my opinion, but America pulling support for Israel was never a real option. Israel does require aid, but Netanyaho doesn’t care if that aid comes from the US, or from his buddy Putin. Israel realigning with Russia would put Palestine in an even worse position because it would threaten their support from Iran.

Then, of course, there is the risk of a regional war breaking out of Iran takes the strained relationship between the US and Israel as an opportunity. That could easily pull other countries in and become WW3.

Foreign policy is about more than just virtue signaling. It’s outcomes that matter, and what a lot of people are calling for will not get them the outcomes they are looking for.

Not that I’m shaming anyone for pressuring Biden. The positive movement on aid shipments was very likely helped along by the protest votes in Michigan.

Did voting for Biden stop Trump this last election?

Um, yes? It didn’t stop Trump from breathing, but it stopped him from being president this term. Even if it somehow eliminated Trump, there is always the next Trump. There is no point where we can stop fighting to preserve past victories, even as we fight for new ones.

How many times are we supposed to vote Democrat against our own interests

None. Voting Democrat is always in your interests. (At least until something major changes) Voting corrupt Democrats out in primaries is even moreso. It would be nice if we lived in a system that can support more than two parties, but we don’t.

Will it always be “neoliberalism or fascism” every election

That’s why we fight to take over the Democratic party. Every obstacle to defeating Democrats in primaries has a corresponding obstacle to winning a general with a third party candidate. Winning as a third party is both more difficult, and more risky.

You want a shortcut, but there isn’t one.

The US is well past the point where radicalization is an unreasonable response. It’s radicalization paired with stupidity that’s a problem, and that’s what we have with the accelerationists and MAGA.

Assuming they get you on video, it would be trivial to crop out the clothes and give the algorithm only your face.

If they do, then they will be full of shit. Am I supposed to use that as an excuse to act like an idiot?

If you have change that you want to see in this country (as you should) then it’s on you to get organized and build support. You don’t get change by driving people away, which is exactly what your kind of toxic politics does.

Look what happened to the far right. They got exactly what they wanted on abortion, and now they are fucked. Instead of doing the hard work of building grass roots support, they went the authoritarian route. Republicans haven’t had a good cycle ever since, with the far right doing even worse.

Don’t conflict these idiots with the entire left wing of the party. They are not representative, just loud.

You can lead a horse to water, but when his health fails or his business burns down he’ll be looking to the big bad government for a handout.

LOL, that’s not anger. At best it’s exhaustion, which has become my typical reaction to people taking a dump on a thread and demanding answers to tired old bullshit that’s been answered a thousand ways before.

My guess? Watching too much CNBC or Fox Business.

Your understanding of regulation only considers freedom on the side of business and not the freedoms of everyone those regulations protect from corporate malfeasance. You don’t get that “socialism” includes things like worker cooperatives that should be the ideal of market commerce. Your concept of freedom seems to exclude the concept of positive freedoms. Your idea of capitalism ignores the coersive reality that workers without the means of production live under. I could go on but I’m not sure I could ever stop finding new issues, which is quite amazing.

In short, your comment contains nothing that isn’t straight up corporate propaganda from someone with not enough curiosity about the world and privileges that have allowed you to remain ignorant.