|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Didn't you get the memo? Tulsi lusts for muslim death with her anti-interventionist policies and support of a scummy Hindu leader that the rest of the world has forgiven. I would imagine there are a lot of Indian Muslims that don't forgive Modhi. More troubling than her stolid support for him, however, has been her apologism for the Assad government. While I do not support further intervention in the Syrian civil war, I am doubtful that Gabbard would implement an anti-interventionist policy any more than Trump.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I would imagine there are a lot of Indian Muslims that don't forgive Modhi.  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/world/asia/india-narendra-modi-obama.html Majorian posted:More troubling than her stolid support for him, however, has been her apologism for the Assad government. Thinking it's stupid to topple a foreign government and create a power void, the same way we've done multiple times in the past, is not equal to being an apologist Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
I don't see any reason to settle for Tulsi 3 years out from the next presidential primary when there are plenty of leftists as good on domestic issues who also don't favor bombing the Middle East forever. If she's the only non establishment centrist on the ballot in 2020 then sure pick her obviously because anyone from the Obama-Clinton wing is obviously going to have an even worse foreign policy than her in addition to their corporate-loving economic policies, but this far out there's plenty of options and no reason to settle for the lesser evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see any reason to settle for Tulsi 3 years out from the next presidential primary when there are plenty of leftists as good on domestic issues who also don't favor bombing the Middle East forever. Bernie (getting too old), Warren (getting too old) and ???
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Bernie (getting too old), Warren (getting too old) and ??? One of the Democratic candidates for 2020 just endorsed UBI
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Bernie (getting too old), Warren (getting too old) and ??? Put some sunglasses on him, I'd vote for Weekend at Bernie's E: Ellison? Buttigieg?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't see any reason to settle for Tulsi 3 years out from the next presidential primary when there are plenty of leftists as good on domestic issues who also don't favor bombing the Middle East forever. What I really don't understand is the adoration of her in some circles. If it was framed as settling for her it'd be less weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Tulsi qualifies as a bad dem. Buying into anti-muslim poo poo is just giving more flak to Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
I'll say I am a little bit curious at what would happen if she gained steam in the primary. Would the establishment candidate attack her for being a weak limp-wristed pansy who hates America and wants terrorists to win because she's not invading everywhere? Or would they notice the anti-war left's discomfort with her love of bombing weddings and hospitals and start concern-trolling over it and calling her the real babykiller.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Bernie (getting too old), Warren (getting too old) and ??? I don't need your loving money you can keep it. Just convince people to vote for me and then go out and vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
You guys also seem to be forgetting just how insanely against gay marriage Tulsi Gabbard has been throughout her career, which she still does not apologize for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'll say I am a little bit curious at what would happen if she gained steam in the primary. I would bet it'd begin and end with 'you met with Trump, you met with Assad' and the corporate media would smear the everloving gently caress out of her on those two points alone until you have rational people like rudatron calling her a bad dem, despite her progressive stance on domestic issues (including Medicare For All!) and being heavily aligned with Bernie. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:You guys also seem to be forgetting just how insanely against gay marriage Tulsi Gabbard has been throughout her career, which she still does not apologize for. I haven't heard anything about this and I'm pretty sure that's not correct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:You guys also seem to be forgetting just how insanely against gay marriage Tulsi Gabbard has been throughout her career, which she still does not apologize for. Yeah but that's more of a Lovecraft situation, where her Islamophobia is so powerful that her hatred looped around and made her pro LGBT rights
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
I hope everyone who actually supports Tulsi in this thread comes to terms with the fact that they would have voted for a left wing trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I hope everyone who actually supports Tulsi in this thread comes to terms with the fact that they would have voted for a left wing trump. She's crazy in a new age religion way that's distinct from trump's narcissism, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
LOL there's people unironically buying into Tulsi's poo poo AND they think they're the left wing? Dang.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
It comes down to the brass tacks of exactly how economically leftwing these candidates are versus their obvious downsides. To be honest, I don't think there is a decent economically leftwing candidate left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:
Bit of a difference when it's two heads of state, versus when one is simply a representative, don't you think? quote:Thinking it's stupid to topple a foreign government and create a power void, the same way we've done multiple times in the past, is not equal to being an apologist Except it's more than that, and I think you know it. Her "just asking questions!' about Assad's involvement in the chemical attacks earlier this year, for example, was inexcusable. Moreover, if not wanting to topple Assad and create a power vacuum is your standard for a good foreign policy, that's a pretty low bar. Even Obama came to agree with that. Most candidates who are likely to go into the 2020 primary are likely to agree with that. Few of them will be as happy to increase the amount of drone strikes in the region, however - except for Gabbard. Call Me Charlie posted:I would bet it'd begin and end with 'you met with Trump, you met with Assad' and the corporate media would smear the everloving gently caress out of her on those two points alone until you have rational people like rudatron calling her a bad dem, despite her progressive stance on domestic issues (including Medicare For All!) and being heavily aligned with Bernie. Being opposed to marriage equality suggests that she's actually not as "heavily aligned" with Bernie as you'd like to believe. Also, of course, her being a huge Islamophobe and Bernie, well, not being one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It comes down to the brass tacks of exactly how economically leftwing these candidates are versus their obvious downsides. What's your criteria for "economically leftwing"? It seems to me that Warren is pretty good, in this respect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but that's more of a Lovecraft situation, where her Islamophobia is so powerful that her hatred looped around and made her pro LGBT rights That actually isn't an exaggeration! https://mauitime.com/news/politics/heres-why-the-hawaii-lgbt-caucus-doesnt-support-rep-tulsi-gabbards-reelection-campaign/ quote:“About 10 years ago, Gabbard violated some of the tenets that now make her so popular as a Democrat with an EMILY’s List endorsement to boot–she was neither pro-choice nor pro-gay-marriage, and in fact fell in line with her erstwhile Republican father [Hawaii state Senator Mike Gabbard],” states the article. “After repeated follow-ups, the congresswoman replies with a note about her sponsorship of the Equality Act (adding sexual orientation to categories of prohibited discrimination) and of her support for equal treatment of gay service members’ spouses.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:LOL there's people unironically buying into Tulsi's poo poo AND they think they're the left wing? As others have mentioned, there isn't a lot of leadership among the Dems right now that the base finds credible. The only people who give a gently caress about the people leading the Democratic party, are the people leading the Democratic party. The centrists did a great job kicking out or marginalizing anyone with a hint of credible leftist policy planks or influence, and all the populists, and so they're unsurprisingly having a pretty difficult time taking advantage of a surge in populist leftist sentiment among the people who are supposed to be voting for them. Frankly they deserve to lose, like permanently in the sense of not being a political party anymore, and it's too bad they're protected from that so well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What's your criteria for "economically leftwing"? It seems to me that Warren is pretty good, in this respect. In all honesty, I always got the sense that while Warren was relatively left wing for a liberal she didn't doesn't want to overturn the apple cart like Bernie did. I think she might be a useful ally, but I wouldn't rest my hopes on her, especially since we need someone out there that is aggressively trying to push a more left-wing agenda. For example, she is honestly a bit late to the game supporting single payer. It is a good thing she does now, but she has only done so cautiously. We need someone that is pushing that edge to begin with. Tulsi has been a bit more aggressive on that front (although I still think she falls short), but I think the criticisms of her foreign policy are fair. That trip to Syria pretty much knocked her out of the running. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In all honesty, I always got the sense that while Warren was relatively left wing for a liberal she didn't doesn't want to overturn the apple cart like Bernie did. I think she might be a useful ally but I wouldn't rest my hopes on her. For example, she is honestly a bit late to the game supporting single payer. It is a good thing she does now, but she has only done so cautiously. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Something tells me that the DNC establishment will have no problem giving Warren the nomination in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:She also refused to run in 2016 despite progressives begging for it pretty much since 2012. If she had her own reasons for not running then, that's totally fine, but if she's suddenly keen on running now after stepping out of the way and leaving the country and the Democratic party to the like of the Obamas and the Clintons, not to mention Trump, well frankly I think it's too loving late for her and she can eat poo poo. Admittedly, it worked out since it gave an opening for Bernie. That said, I think the time for a well-meaning liberal is over, we need someone that is actually going to fight in the trenches and take some big chances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:She also refused to run in 2016 despite progressives begging for it pretty much since 2012. If she had her own reasons for not running then, that's totally fine, but if she's suddenly keen on running now after stepping out of the way and leaving the country and the Democratic party to the like of the Obamas and the Clintons, not to mention Trump, well frankly I think it's too loving late for her and she can eat poo poo. It seemed to me at the time, and still seems to me, that she didn't want to be cast as "the other woman in the Democratic primary," and get permanently overshadowed by Clinton. In retrospect, I wish she had run, too, but if that was her logic at the time, I can't really fault her on it. The media had pretty much settled on the narrative of Clinton as the Democratic nominee from the get-go, and Warren would have just been another third-string candidate in their eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Tulsi has been a bit more aggressive on that front (although I still think she falls short), but I think the criticisms of her foreign policy are fair. That trip to Syria pretty much knocked her out of the running. Ah yes, the one Democrat candidate who publicly opposes the Bush Doctrine of regime change now has no shot of running in 2020. This says more about the other candidates than Gabbard. How inspiring.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
My suspicion is that Warren was asked not to run, in exchange for a potential position in the 'upcoming' Clinton administration or whatever - at the very least, she could have used the threat of running as a way to grab a concession. But that was before Bernie blew up. O'Malley was maybe trying to set up for a 2020 or 2024?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:Ah yes, the one Democrat candidate who publicly opposes the Bush Doctrine of regime change Jesus Christ dude, do you really believe this? Are you really this delusional?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Jesus Christ dude, do you really believe this? Are you really this delusional? Warren supports regime change in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
I thought the logic was more about giving up a senate seat in a state with a republican governor? I'm pretty sure if she were to run the racist "Pocahontas" bullshit will eventually drive me to actually murder someone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:Warren supports regime change in Syria. Where? Point me to a quote, please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:Ah yes, the one Democrat candidate who publicly opposes the Bush Doctrine of regime change now has no shot of running in 2020. This says more about the other candidates than Gabbard. How inspiring. Eh there are other issues out there besides regime change and honestly, I think that Syrian trip was a terrible loving idea (and if you ever paid attention to the Middle East thread then you should know how much I challenge interventionism). More than anything though it makes her toxic and easily attackable, and will distract from any economic message she has. rudatron posted:My suspicion is that Warren was asked not to run, in exchange for a potential position in the 'upcoming' Clinton administration or whatever - at the very least, she could have used the threat of running as a way to grab a concession. But that was before Bernie blew up. O'Malley was maybe trying to set up for a 2020 or 2024? Honestly, we never know but I always got a sense Warren was still at her heart a careerist. (I instinctively distrust careerism after living in DC.) I mean I would pick either one of them over Booker or Gillibrand but yeah there doesn't seem to be any good options. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Honestly, we never know but I always got a sense Warren was still at her heart a careerist and I instinctively distrust careerism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Where? Point me to a quote, please. You're making GBS threads me, right? She says Assad needs to be 'handled' and removed. Supporting Assad's stay is career suicide in the DNC right now. E; Jesus, she just toured Afghanistan. RedSpider fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
First the Democrats were split between liberals and leftists. Now the leftists have further split between actual leftists/socialists and whatever you call the folks who are big fans of people like Jimmy Dore and Tulsi Gabbard. Edit: Regarding Warren, I get the impression that she is someone who probably wouldn't be willing to fight for leftist causes if it meant significant conflict with the mainstream Democratic consensus, but would be willing to do so if there wasn't much resistance to the idea. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:You're making GBS threads me, right? She says Assad needs to be 'handled' and removed. Supporting Assad's stay is career suicide in the DNC right now. Again, where? Where is the quote? e: Because everything I'm seeing suggests that she is against escalating the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
Nothing makes me side-eye white American leftists more than spending months (rightfully) saying the democrats need to field better candidates and then floating Tulsi loving Gabbard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Again, where? Where is the quote? Thats the problem, there is none. That civil war has been going on for six years now and she hasn't given an answer on Assad (she's playing chess here). If she runs in 2020, she probably will given that the media will portray Assad as a Trump ally or some other dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 08:28
|
|