Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
B | 77 | 25.50% | |
K | 160 | 52.98% | |
M | 65 | 21.52% | |
Total: | 229 votes |
|
Ze Pollack posted:a trump voter who views opposing gay marriage and wanting to throw the muslims in camps as the Right Thing Yeah, that's really what this is coming down to: the Tulsi fans here see those things as acceptable sacrifices, as long as we get single payer out of it. The rest of us, well...don't. We want single payer too, but there are some things we're not going to give ground on to get it.
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:18 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 02:30 |
|
call me crazy but i dont think a woman who goes on Neil Cavuto to rant about how material circumstances behind terrorism are a fake idea and actually they hate us for our freedom is going to go to bat for vulnerable members of our society
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:23 |
|
An IMHO exceptionally good article on Archieving Our Country by Richard Rorty, which predicted the rise of someone like Trump and the Democrats' problems as far back as in 1998. Thankfully it also offers solutions, which I quite like. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/advice-for-the-left-on-achieving-a-more-perfect-union/531054/
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:24 |
|
Reminder that over 50% of Republicans support gay marriage. Championing the basic market tested social policies is no longer a viable tactic for Democrats, because the difference in acceptable outcomes for the two parties has dangerously narrowed.
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:26 |
|
it turns out the problem with Hillary Clinton wasn't the willingness to sacrifice human lives to the right on grounds she didn't give a poo poo about them, it was her precise choice of who to sacrifice neat
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:27 |
|
A lesson of 2016 is certainly that we don't need to look at only Senators/Governors/etc. A good candidate that's a mayor, statewide official, or even an activist or organizer can do better if they're an actually better candidate. Trump has broken the norm that the president needs vague foreign policy experience and we should take advantage of that.
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:28 |
|
Ze Pollack posted:it turns out the problem with Hillary Clinton wasn't the willingness to sacrifice human lives to the right on grounds she didn't give a poo poo about them, it was her precise choice of who to sacrifice small brain - hanging out with Henry Kissinger large brain - not hanging out with war criminals galaxy brain - hanging out with Narendra Modi and the Lion Assad
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:29 |
|
guy recoiling in disgust: jail the poor, more poc guards for their prisons guy giving thumbs up: jail the gays and muslims, more guards from underprivileged backgrounds for their prisons
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:31 |
|
is there a single us politician who has expressed any level of dismay at Modi?
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 22:31 |
|
Ze Pollack posted:it turns out the problem with Hillary Clinton wasn't the willingness to sacrifice human lives to the right on grounds she didn't give a poo poo about them, it was her precise choice of who to sacrifice https://twitter.com/Mondoweiss/status/882972998432686080
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:02 |
|
The study doesn't actually say that. The study makes the much more nuanced point that Trump appealed to communities with high amounts of military sacrifice. It doesn't extend that to being pro or anti war. I think Trump even as a candidate was no dove, but his vision of future US conflict was different that Clinton's and that's a key difference rather than pretending Trump was anti-war: quote:In sum, Trump promised a foreign policy that would be both simultaneously more muscular and more restrained. Trump promised to rebuild and refocus the military: “Our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today. ... Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.” And he also promised to be much more reticent in its use: “Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce it. However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are signs of strength.”26 So the conclusions for democrats are more along the lines of: quote:Second, the findings are also a lesson for the Democrats and establishment Republicans who are still trying to figure out how to beat Trump. Our analysis suggests that politicians from both parties would do well to more directly recognize and address the needs of those communities whose young women and men are making the ultimate sacrifice for the country.
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:11 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:So the conclusions for democrats are more along the lines of: In other words, stop wasting time and money in affluent white GOP suburbs. You will not win elections by making the Dems purely an "urban party," or whatever stupid way Dan Savage put it.
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:15 |
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, that's really what this is coming down to: the Tulsi fans here see those things as acceptable sacrifices, as long as we get single payer out of it. The rest of us, well...don't. We want single payer too, but there are some things we're not going to give ground on to get it. Nah, it's more like... Tulsi fans see her as the best choice to fight for progressive domestic issues on a national stage and take down Trump in 2020 while
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:15 |
|
I keep hearing here that she's an Assad apologist. When I read around though it seems that Tulsi's position is more that "Yes, Assad is bad, but the Syrian people seem to want a return to that more than continued war and US supported terrorists like Al Shabaab or ISIS affiliated factions or "name of fundamentalist faction" taking power if he falls". I don't see that as an unreasonable position in the slightest.
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:26 |
|
only one of the two of us is talking about how surrendering abjectly to the right wing in order to achieve Compromise Policy is a good thing, friend Trump voter. and it ain't the one you're calling a Hillary supporter.
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:27 |
Kokoro Wish posted:I keep hearing here that she's an Assad apologist. When I read around though it seems that Tulsi's position is more that "Yes, Assad is bad, but the Syrian people seem to want a return to that more than continued war and US supported terrorists like Al Shabaab or ISIS affiliated factions or "name of fundamentalist faction" taking power if he falls". I don't see that as an unreasonable position in the slightest. Exactly. Too bad most of the posters ITT are too retarded to understand this. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:35 |
|
Kokoro Wish posted:I keep hearing here that she's an Assad apologist. When I read around though it seems that Tulsi's position is more that "Yes, Assad is bad, but the Syrian people seem to want a return to that more than continued war and US supported terrorists like Al Shabaab or ISIS affiliated factions or "name of fundamentalist faction" taking power if he falls". I don't see that as an unreasonable position in the slightest. The Jacobin piece that was posted upthread does a good job of detailing why her positions on Syria, the Middle East, and foreign policy in general, are so questionable: quote:In February 2015, Gabbard had the chance to question Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Vincent Stewart. She asked him (while clearly fishing for a particular answer) about the debate over “how this ideology, how this motivation, must be identified” and what “common elements” existed among different Islamic terrorist groups, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram. She then went on Fox and reported that Stewart had “identified very clearly that it is this radical Islamic ideology that is fueling” these groups. quote:Gabbard’s worldview also leaves out the role that European and US governments, particularly the Reagan administration, have played in bringing hardline fundamentalists to power and prominence. Bin Laden may have been a millionaire, but he was also a CIA recruit. On top of that, add her weird "secret meeting" with Assad earlier this year, as well as her denial of Assad's involvement in the chemical attacks.
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:48 |
|
RedSpider posted:Exactly. Too bad most of the posters ITT are too retarded to understand this. That's parroting Assads position, which isn't reality. But you don't know that, because you don't know poo poo about Syria but LOL you are calling other people dumb?
|
# ? Jul 6, 2017 23:51 |
|
Can someone please explain to me why someone's position on a PM is disqualifying and not being pro single player isn't? Besides the obvious FYGM angle I mean
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:22 |
Jaxyon posted:That's parroting Assads position, which isn't reality. This post demonstrates how ignorant you are. I don't support Western powers overthrowing Assad so you might as well strawman me as an Assad supporter.
|
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:23 |
|
Kokoro Wish posted:I keep hearing here that she's an Assad apologist. When I read around though it seems that Tulsi's position is more that "Yes, Assad is bad, but the Syrian people seem to want a return to that more than continued war and US supported terrorists like Al Shabaab or ISIS affiliated factions or "name of fundamentalist faction" taking power if he falls". I don't see that as an unreasonable position in the slightest. No poo poo, of course it's a reasonable position that's going to hurt the careers of the poor neoliberal slobs that oppose her. It's far more convenient to twist the above into "literally wants to exterminate all brown people" Notice how they have to go to Jacobin for a takedown because everything she says is fully within the acceptable discourse re: foreign policy
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:25 |
|
RedSpider posted:This post demonstrates how ignorant you are. I don't support Western powers overthrowing Assad so you might as well strawman me as an Assad supporter. It's a completely made up position that Assad uses to give himself legitimacy and used to fool low-info foreigners and complaint journalists as it's doing with you, but tell me more about your deep understanding of a conflict that has at least 4 different sides and rapidly changing loyalties. call to action posted:Can someone please explain to me why someone's position on a PM is disqualifying and not being pro single player isn't? Besides the obvious FYGM angle I mean People are upset she's a racist but since you're going to minimize that it's probably because everyone here isn't' as leftist as you, bro. You figured it out!
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:26 |
|
Jaxyon posted:It's a completely made up position that Assad uses to give himself legitimacy and used to fool low-info foreigners and complaint journalists as it's doing with you, but tell me more about your deep understanding of a conflict that has at least 4 different sides and rapidly changing loyalties. If she is a racist, then Hillary was a slaveowner. If you admit to the second I'll admit to the first.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:27 |
|
call to action posted:If she is a racist, then Hillary was a slaveowner. If you admit to the second I'll admit to the first. Hillary did have slaves, they were working for her as first lady of Arkansas. Now you go.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:29 |
|
Jaxyon posted:Hillary did have slaves, they were working for her as first lady of Arkansas. Say the magic "s" word first.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:30 |
Jaxyon posted:It's a completely made up position that Assad uses to give himself legitimacy and used to fool low-info foreigners and complaint journalists as it's doing with you, but tell me more about your deep understanding of a conflict that has at least 4 different sides and rapidly changing loyalties. Bloodshed, anarchy, and mass exterminations will occur tenfold is Assad is removed. This really isn't debatable at this moment in time. So far, I haven't heard a coherent nor longterm plan from neoconservatives and their lackeys (you) for what comes after Assad's removal if it were to occur. Even if you had one, I strongly doubt it would be effective as evidenced in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
|
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:31 |
|
call to action posted:Say the magic "s" word first. Hahahah yeah I figured you were full of poo poo.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:31 |
|
call to action posted:Notice how they have to go to Jacobin for a takedown because everything she says is fully within the acceptable discourse re: foreign policy accepted standards for foreign policy are real fuckin bad and the alleged leading light of progressivism should probably not be doing poo poo like spouting off about how terrorists just hate freedom
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:32 |
|
RedSpider posted:Bloodshed, anarchy, and mass exterminations will occur tenfold is Assad is removed. This really isn't debatable at this moment in time. So far, I haven't heard a coherent nor longterm plan from neoconservatives and their lackeys (you) for what comes after Assad's removal if it were to occur. Even if you had one, I strongly doubt it would be effective as evidenced in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. "We have to support this murderous dictator!" - Kissinger and - A leftist
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:32 |
|
Forgive me, but wasn't one of the reasons for not voting for Hillary was that she was a hawk that was going to bring us into WW3, but now, eh gently caress all that, Gabbard's WW3 will include healthcare!
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:34 |
Jaxyon posted:"We have to support this murderous dictator!" Your arguments are no different from the Fox News and Talk Radio brigade leading up to Iraq. It's the same identical bullshit.
|
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:34 |
|
call to action posted:Can someone please explain to me why someone's position on a PM is disqualifying and not being pro single player isn't? Besides the obvious FYGM angle I mean They both should be disqualifying. RedSpider posted:Your arguments are no different from the Fox News and Talk Radio brigade leading up to Iraq. It's the same identical bullshit. That's ridiculous and you know it. No one here is supporting greater involvement in Syria, and I think we're all agreed that taking out Assad anytime soon would be a big mistake.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:35 |
|
RedSpider posted:Your arguments are no different from the Fox News and Talk Radio brigade leading up to Iraq. It's the same identical bullshit. Yeah man, it's basically exactly the same.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:38 |
|
steinrokkan posted:is there a single us politician who has expressed any level of dismay at Modi? In 2005, years before he became PM, the US denied Modi a visa for being too enthusiastic about burning muslims alive and Tulsi called it a grave injustice. There's a difference between Obama being cordial with another head of state and going to bat for some murderous Indian regional governor in your first session in congress.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:44 |
JeffersonClay posted:In 2005, years before he became PM, the US denied Modi a visa for being too enthusiastic about burning muslims alive and Tulsi called it a grave injustice. There's a difference between Obama being cordial with another head of state and going to bat for some murderous Indian regional governor in your first session in congress. How many muslims have been 'enthusiastically' killed under Abuela's SOS foreign policy positions again? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU Oh.
|
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:49 |
|
paranoid randroid posted:accepted standards for foreign policy are real fuckin bad and the alleged leading light of progressivism should probably not be doing poo poo like spouting off about how terrorists just hate freedom You mean like this forum's Sainted Queen has done over and over again?
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:54 |
|
I am convinced. The Democrats are a waste.
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:54 |
|
yall keep bringing up Clinton like you expect anyone in here to defend her and its pretty laffo
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:55 |
|
call to action posted:You mean like this forum's Sainted Queen has done over and over again? LOL remember when you were convinced I wouldn't admit Hillary had slaves like 5 minutes ago and when I agreed you ran off hoping we'd forget that you were supposed to admit Tulsi's a racist?
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:56 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 02:30 |
paranoid randroid posted:yall keep bringing up Clinton like you expect anyone in here to defend her and its pretty laffo I see you're not very well acquainted with JeffersonClay. Also, Clinton's brand of centrism (aggressive foreign policy, neoliberal economics) still dominates the Democratic Party, so it's relevant.
|
|
# ? Jul 7, 2017 00:58 |