Queering Wheel posted:

Duckworth or Franken becoming president would be really cool

Majorian posted:

I, uh, get the impression that you don't know much about Gabbard's actual positions on things...

RedSpider posted:

Democratic socialism and anti-interventionism. Sign me up.

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.

Majorian posted:

I, uh, get the impression that you don't know much about Gabbard's actual positions on things...

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?!

(Seriously, it's sad for how many people fall for obvious tactics to discredit and smear her before her presidential run.)

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?!

(Seriously, it's sad for how many people fall for obvious tactics to discredit and smear her before her presidential run.)

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.”

“In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” she told the Hawaii Tribune-Herald last year. “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

In other words, Gabbard would continue the Obama administration’s foreign policy, which itself was a continuation (and in some ways ramping up) of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. She would keep up the drone bombing of seven Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa — perhaps even expand it — while also relying more on special operations forces, which are already raiding, assassinating, and gathering intelligence in 70 percent of the world’s countries.

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.

In reality, foreign-born terrorists carrying out acts of violence in the United States, particularly from visa waiver countries, is virtually nonexistent. Yet Gabbard hyped the threat. “If we do nothing to close this loophole, and allow a terrorist to carry out an attack on our homeland, the impacts will be devastating,” she warned.

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.

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. In essence, her position — throwing more roadblocks in front of Syrian refugees, while making an exception for Christians — is the same as that of the Trump administration, whose original refugee ban exempted “religious minorities.”

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.)

Majorian posted:

No, seriously, read the piece I posted. You obviously haven't, because the piece quite literally takes down those misconceptions about her.

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.

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)

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."

RedSpider posted:

Are you saying you wouldn't vote for her against Trump?

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."

Razputeen posted:

i am 100% confident that you voted for a loving lunatic just recently then

e: toxxed yourself for said lunatic lol

Majorian posted:

Okay, maybe if I quote the piece you'll read some of it:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Call Me Charlie posted:

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.

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.

Call Me Charlie posted:

I read the whole thing, you rear end in a top hat.


Also supported by Hillary Clinton. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...he-no-fly-list/


How's that a bad thing?


Good.


This one's gross but it's on par with the most of the country's thoughts on the topic.


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.

RedSpider posted:

I don't want Assad removed either

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.

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.

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.

She replied, in part:

“No. It’s an annual report. It is not in any way connected. We look forward to President Mubarak coming as soon as his schedule would permit. I had a wonderful time with him this morning. I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in 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.

Razputeen posted:

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.

Majorian posted:

Wow, no wonder you voted for Trump.

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.

Razputeen posted:

Razputeen posted:

Call Me Charlie posted:

Sorry I'm not a big softy when it comes to refugees we created from our interventionist foreign policy.

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.

quote:

Also that Joe Biden would be a better choice for 2020 than her.

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?

Jizz Festival posted:

If you think Tulsi is comparable to Corbyn you're a loving idiot.

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.

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.

Republicans posted:

We're waaaaaay past the point of anything like that ever mattering in politics ever again.

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"

Republicans posted:

We're waaaaaay past the point of anything like that ever mattering in politics ever again.

Majorian posted:

To Republicans, yes. To general election voters, perhaps.

To Democratic primary voters and party elites? ...ehhhhh...

Razputeen posted:

i think that they are comparable in that the press attempted to smear corbyn as a sympathizer to assad

Republicans posted:

Well they better get the gently caress over themselves real quick.