Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
B | 77 | 25.50% | |
K | 160 | 52.98% | |
M | 65 | 21.52% | |
Total: | 229 votes |
Duckworth or Franken becoming president would be really cool
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:43 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 17:32 |
|
Queering Wheel posted:Duckworth or Franken becoming president would be really cool I'd enjoy that, although I'd be a little worried that someone has stories/tape of Franken getting coked up and doing something horrifying during an SNL cast party or something.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:46 |
Majorian posted:I, uh, get the impression that you don't know much about Gabbard's actual positions on things... Democratic socialism and anti-interventionism. Sign me up.
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:47 |
|
RedSpider posted:Democratic socialism and anti-interventionism. Sign me up. No, seriously, read the piece I posted. You obviously haven't, because the piece quite literally takes down those misconceptions about her.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:51 |
|
Majorian posted:While I agree broadly, I don't think Warren's age should discount her, when she's so clearly the nominee that the Dems need at this point in history. She's older, but she's also not a 400-pound coked-out buttertroll like Trump. She doesn't come off as 71, and she'd probably do fine in the job until at least 75 years old. The problem with this is that incumbency is such a huge advantage that you never want to run anyone who might seriously consider bowing out of their second term. It's also worth pointing out that the only three presidents who started their terms around that age are Reagan, Harrison, and Trump. That's a guy who may have been serving with Alzheimer's, another who died a month into his first term, and Donald Trump. I'm not saying that Liz Warren would necessarily have health problems that would compromise her ability to do the job, but it's more likely than it would be with someone younger. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jul 2, 2017 |
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:54 |
|
Majorian posted:I, uh, get the impression that you don't know much about Gabbard's actual positions on things... Oh poo poo, Tulsi doesn't want perpetual regime change war in the middle east, defended a scummy Hindu leader that the rest of the world has forgiven and she gets a bunch of (troll) support from the right for her tough on Islam terrorist position. You're right. There's no trusting that loving crazy bitch. Where's my Biden 2020 shirt?! (Seriously, it's sad for how many people fall for obvious tactics to discredit and smear her before her presidential run.)
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:55 |
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Oh poo poo, Tulsi doesn't want perpetual regime change war in the middle east, defended a scummy Hindu leader that the rest of the world has forgiven and she gets a bunch of (troll) support from the right for her tough on Islam terrorist position. You're right. There's no trusting that loving crazy bitch. Where's my Biden 2020 shirt?! Tulsi Gabbard is very efficient at distinguishing the actual leftists from the Jimmy Dores of the world.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:56 |
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Oh poo poo, Tulsi doesn't want perpetual regime change war in the middle east, defended a scummy Hindu leader that the rest of the world has forgiven and she gets a bunch of (troll) support from the right for her tough on Islam terrorist position. You're right. There's no trusting that loving crazy bitch. Where's my Biden 2020 shirt?! Okay, maybe if I quote the piece you'll read some of it: quote:It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.” quote:Gabbard’s suspicion of Islam goes beyond rhetoric. Last year, she supported legislation that would have barred those on the no-fly list — a list that makes a mockery of due process — from buying guns. Before that, in 2014, Gabbard introduced a bill that would have halted the visa waiver program for countries whose citizens had gone to fight with extremists, claiming that the program “puts the American people in danger.” Had it passed, people from the UK, France, Germany, and many other European countries would have been forced to apply for visas before visiting the United States. Gabbard would be a really bad candidate. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Jul 2, 2017 |
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:57 |
Majorian posted:No, seriously, read the piece I posted. You obviously haven't, because the piece quite literally takes down those misconceptions about her. I did read it. Nobody's perfect (I'm not even going to regurgitate Warren's flaws here). They're basically saying that her anti-intervention comes from a 'nationalist' view (loving lol), and that she uses the term Radical Islamic Terrorism or whatever. Okay, I'm not too big on that. The sickening part of that article are the parts where they're trying to link her to David loving Duke and Richard Spencer. Hey, Richard Spencer supports single-payer; does that mean I shouldn't? It's mostly character arguments rather than policy ones. Hey, if Warren gets the nomination, I'll vote for her. I just don't want old white people running anymore.
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:57 |
Majorian posted:I'd enjoy that, although I'd be a little worried that someone has stories/tape of Franken getting coked up and doing something horrifying during an SNL cast party or something. I'd be worried too, but I think we're in a new age now that someone like Trump is president. If Franken truly was exposed as being a coke head and partying up a storm in the past, I could see Dems shrugging and going "well at least it's not as bad as Pussygate!" Partying a lot is also way more normal and less sinister sounding than the whole email scandal was. As far as Warren goes, she should stay in the Senate. However, I will say that she does not look 68 at all to me. She looks ten years younger than that. If she did run I'm sure that she would be in way better shape than Trump and Reagan at that age.
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:58 |
|
i think the article raises some good points about her militarism and poor record on LGBT issues. now, what were we saying about Tulsi Gabbard?
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 06:59 |
|
RedSpider posted:I did read it. Nobody's perfect (I'm not even going to regurgitate Warren's flaws here). They're basically saying that her anti-intervention comes from a 'nationalist' view (loving lol) She flat-out called herself a hawk on the GWOT, dude. She thinks Obama didn't do enough drone strikes. She is not an anti-interventionist. This is not a "she's not perfect enough" thing. This is a "she's a loving lunatic."
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:00 |
|
in seriousness though let's get better candidates but not become defensive starry eyed fanboys about them like the people still having nervous breakdowns about abuela on twitter
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:00 |
Majorian posted:She flat-out called herself a hawk on the GWOT, dude. She thinks Obama didn't do enough drone strikes. She is not an anti-interventionist. This is not a "she's not perfect enough" thing. This is a "she's a loving lunatic." Are you saying you wouldn't vote for her against Trump?
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:03 |
|
RedSpider posted:Are you saying you wouldn't vote for her against Trump? Against Trump, of course I would. But she would be a step in the wrong direction for the Dems long-term, and she also almost certainly wouldn't win.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:04 |
|
Majorian posted:She flat-out called herself a hawk on the GWOT, dude. She thinks Obama didn't do enough drone strikes. She is not an anti-interventionist. This is not a "she's not perfect enough" thing. This is a "she's a loving lunatic." i am 100% confident that you voted for a loving lunatic just recently then e: toxxed yourself for said lunatic lol
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:04 |
|
I would vote for Gabbard over Hillary but that doesn't mean she's not still awful.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:09 |
|
Razputeen posted:i am 100% confident that you voted for a loving lunatic just recently then I should clarify: the reasons why she's a lunatic, IMO, have more to do with her support for people like Assad and Sisi, as well as the fact that she just flat-out really doesn't like Muslims who aren't themselves dictators. Policy-wise, she's pretty clearly a warmonger. But all that said, yeah, Clinton was also a warmonger and about the same as Tulsi on these issues. I voted for the lesser of two evils, sue me.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:09 |
|
Majorian posted:Okay, maybe if I quote the piece you'll read some of it: I read the whole thing, you rear end in a top hat. quote:Last year, she supported legislation that would have barred those on the no-fly list — a list that makes a mockery of due process — from buying guns. Also supported by Hillary Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...he-no-fly-list/ quote:Before that, in 2014, Gabbard introduced a bill that would have halted the visa waiver program for countries whose citizens had gone to fight with extremists, claiming that the program “puts the American people in danger.” Had it passed, people from the UK, France, Germany, and many other European countries would have been forced to apply for visas before visiting the United States. How's that a bad thing? quote:Gabbard’s hardline stance carried over to the subject of refugees. She was one of forty-seven Democrats to join the House GOP in passing the SAFE Act in 2015, which would have added extra requirements to the already onerous refugee vetting process and effectively ground to a halt the admission of Syrian and Iraqi refugees into the country. In a statement, Gabbard claimed she was voting for the bill to save the refugee program. Good. quote:Two months before that, however, she had introduced a resolution calling for the United States to prioritize religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East — namely, Christians and Yezidis — when granting refugee status. “These persecuted religious minority groups must be our first priority,” she said. This one's gross but it's on par with the most of the country's thoughts on the topic. quote:So it was little surprise that shortly after the election, Trump held talks with Gabbard — a meeting set up by Steve Bannon, a longtime admirer of the Hawaii congresswoman. Sources told the Hill at the time that Bannon “loves her” and “wants to work with her on everything,” and that “she would fit perfectly” in the administration because “she gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff.” (Gabbard’s name was conspicuously missing from the letter 169 House Democrats signed last November calling for Trump to rescind Bannon’s appointment.) Back to my original point, these are smear tactics. Trump's trying to weaken her for 2020. Anybody with half a brain can see she's going to make a run for it in 2020. I commend her for meeting with Trump to try to talk some sense into him regarding Syria, even if it wasn't the politically smart thing to do.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:10 |
|
Wow, no wonder you voted for Trump. And good lord, folks - I've spent the last, what, couple hundred pages lambasting Clinton and her team? So saying, "B-b-but Clinton supports this thing too!!!" isn't exactly a compelling argument to me.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:11 |
Majorian posted:I should clarify: the reasons why she's a lunatic, IMO, have more to do with her support for people like Assad and Sisi, as well as the fact that she just flat-out really doesn't like Muslims who aren't themselves dictators. Policy-wise, she's pretty clearly a warmonger. I don't want Assad removed either, because what comes after is even worse; as demonstrated three loving times in 15 years with Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. This does NOT mean I support or like Assad's values, and the media seriously needs to gently caress off with deliberately conflating the two (they won't, their job is to keep the public stupid).
|
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:14 |
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I read the whole thing, you rear end in a top hat. I'm so thrilled that people like you and Tulsi Gabbard are going to be used to attempt to discredit the left in the years to come.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:15 |
|
RedSpider posted:I don't want Assad removed either Right, but one can oppose removing Assad, without playing the apologist for him, which is what she routinely does.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:16 |
|
Majorian posted:I should clarify: the reasons why she's a lunatic, IMO, have more to do with her support for people like Assad and Sisi, as well as the fact that she just flat-out really doesn't like Muslims who aren't themselves dictators. Policy-wise, she's pretty clearly a warmonger. quote:ABC’s Kirit Radia reports: During a March 2, 2009 interview with the Arab television network Al Arabiya in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked about the State Deparment’s annual human rights report, which is perennially critical of Egypt’s record, and whether it was tied to an invitation for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to visit the United States. quote:Hillary and I are saddened by the passing of His Majesty Abdullah bin Abdulaziz. I had many dealings with His Majesty during and after my presidency, as did Hillary both inside and outside the State Department, and we are grateful for his support of efforts for peace in the Middle East; our close economic cooperation; the Kingdom’s humanitarian efforts around the world; especially its contributions after the earthquake in Haiti; and his efforts to modernize Saudi Arabia’s economy and education systems – as embodied by King Abdullah University, the Kingdom’s first coeducational institution of higher education. Hillary and I are also grateful for his personal friendship and kindness toward our family and we join the Saudi people in mourning his loss and send our heartfelt condolences to the Royal Family.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:18 |
|
You're still arguing that Tulsi is no worse than Clinton on foreign policy. That's not a good thing. You realize that, right?
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:19 |
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm so thrilled that people like you and Tulsi Gabbard are going to be used to attempt to discredit the left in the years to come.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:20 |
|
Majorian posted:Wow, no wonder you voted for Trump. Sorry I'm not a big softy when it comes to refugees we created from our interventionist foreign policy. Opening the gates doesn't help the initial problem of us creating perpetual war in their area that they have to flee from. Majorian posted:And good lord, folks - I've spent the last, what, couple hundred pages lambasting Clinton and her team? So saying, "B-b-but Clinton supports this thing too!!!" isn't exactly a compelling argument to me. Your argument is that Tulsi should be disqualified for running for office because she supported a policy Hillary and a number of other democrats also supported. Also that Joe Biden would be a better choice for 2020 than her.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:20 |
|
If you think Tulsi is comparable to Corbyn you're a loving idiot.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:21 |
|
Corbyn's not a raging Islamophobe. Nor did he run on expanding drone strikes, nor does he support propping up horrifically violent dictators. Yes, so did Clinton; no, that's still not a point in Gabbard's favor.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:21 |
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Sorry I'm not a big softy when it comes to refugees we created from our interventionist foreign policy. That's not being a "softy"; that's being responsible for the outcomes of your horrible past mistakes. Sorry helping those who you've previously hosed over is such an unappealing idea in your mind. quote:Your argument is that Tulsi should be disqualified for running for office because she supported a policy Hillary and a number of other democrats also supported. No, my argument is that Gabbard is not much of an improvement on Hillary on these issues, and is also, by the way, a vocal Islamophobe. She doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the Democratic ticket. quote:Also that Joe Biden would be a better choice for 2020 than her. Not better, just that he'd have a better chance of winning, which he would.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:24 |
|
Majorian posted:You're still arguing that Tulsi is no worse than Clinton on foreign policy. That's not a good thing. You realize that, right? i do, actually, and as stated, we shouldn't follow the example of the #StillWithHer people and feel the need to affirmatively defend the terrible positions of political candidates. my point is more that we should be skeptical of claims like "candidate x is a lunatic for holding the positions of candidate y whom i do not think is a lunatic and whom i supported"
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:24 |
|
Jizz Festival posted:If you think Tulsi is comparable to Corbyn you're a loving idiot. i think that they are comparable in that the press attempted to smear corbyn as a sympathizer to assad
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:25 |
|
Majorian posted:I'd enjoy that, although I'd be a little worried that someone has stories/tape of Franken getting coked up and doing something horrifying during an SNL cast party or something. We're waaaaaay past the point of anything like that ever mattering in politics ever again.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:26 |
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Your argument is that Tulsi should be disqualified for running for office because she supported a policy Hillary and a number of other democrats also supported. Dude, this is the bad dems thread. ITT we all should be aware that a lot of dems routinely support policies that should definitely get you disqualified from running for president. I mean, hell, if you had to pick between Clinton and Gabbard then Tulsi is definitely better, but that doesn't change the fact that y'all ought to be able to do better than an outright islamophobe. EDIT: Republicans posted:We're waaaaaay past the point of anything like that ever mattering in politics ever again. This is an A+ username/post combo right here.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:27 |
|
We had the chance to turn the Supreme Court 5-4 in favor of organized labor, and Call Me Charlie you voted against that because you're scared of Arab children. Thanks.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:28 |
|
Razputeen posted:i do, actually, and as stated, we shouldn't follow the example of the #StillWithHer people and feel the need to affirmatively defend the terrible positions of political candidates. my point is more that we should be skeptical of claims like "candidate x is a lunatic for holding the positions of candidate y whom i do not think is a lunatic and whom i supported" That's fair, although for the record, she does hold some pretty terrible views towards the cause of violence in the Middle East, and some even worse views towards refugees. Republicans posted:We're waaaaaay past the point of anything like that ever mattering in politics ever again. To Republicans, yes. To general election voters, perhaps. To Democratic primary voters and party elites? ...ehhhhh...
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:28 |
|
Majorian posted:To Republicans, yes. To general election voters, perhaps. Well they better get the gently caress over themselves real quick.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:29 |
|
Razputeen posted:i think that they are comparable in that the press attempted to smear corbyn as a sympathizer to assad The Jacobin article, representing the leftist critique of Tulsi Gabbard, does not do that. You're comparing criticisms coming from the center and right with criticisms coming from the left.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:32 |
|
Republicans posted:Well they better get the gently caress over themselves real quick. But will getting over it solve racism?!?!?! (but yes, agreed, Dems need to stop loving overthinking things)
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:33 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 17:32 |
|
Like if people try to use Jeremy Corbyn to smear the left, I'm fine with that because at least he's an actual leftist. Tulsi Gabbard is a somewhat crazy person whose views align with people on the left sometimes. Using her to represent the left is something I have an issue with.
|
# ? Jul 2, 2017 07:35 |