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.

The link.

Thank God the Daily Boulder is covering this.

Show of “force”.

I got banned for spreading “disinformation” about how badly the war with Ukraine is going for Russia.

It’s not so much being pro-genocide as being genocide indifferent. The real motivation here is to avoid precedent that could be used against the US in the future. The US absolutely doesn’t want to be subject to the ICC.

The most valuable asset that China has to gain from Taiwan is it’s advanced microchip fabrication industry. Knowing that it would be destroyed greatly alters the value equation.

Defense planning of any kind is never about making it impossible for an adversary to succeed. In most cases that’s not even possible. The goal is to make the adversary believe (based preferably on reality) that it will cost them more than they can hope to gain.

I believe the US has said that it will engage with Russian forces in Ukraine if Russia uses any nukes.

Using nukes is probably the fastest way for Russia to end sanctions. There would be no need for sanctions once NATO ends Putin’s government.

It’s almost like they’re acting like a public corporation.

He has a lot of good opinions, but not consistently good opinions. He reminds me a lot of how many viewed Russell Brand or maybe Joe Rogan years ago. When good opinions come from a shallow philosophical framework, always expect things to go sideways eventually.

It might be a schtick, but their public facade never entirely detached from their actual identity. Also, isn’t that what everyone does to some extent?