|
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:Hawk in the terms that she would use tactical drone strikes to try to fight it, which is just a continuation of what happened under Obama. That's signficantly different than hawk, let's topple foreign governments, or hawk, let's put boots on ground. Rolling back our disastrous foreign policy to just murdering You realize, of course, that what you're describing is extremely similar to what Trump promised for his foreign policy during the campaign. I don't see much of a reason to believe that Gabbard's would turn out any differently.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Majorian posted:You realize, of course, that what you're describing is extremely similar to what Trump promised for his foreign policy during the campaign. I don't see much of a reason to believe that Gabbard's would turn out any differently. She's not a 71 year old reality tv star who's policy seems to sway towards the position of whoever's talking to him at the moment. If your position is 'anybody who says they're going to try to walk back our disastrous foreign policy is exactly like Trump and not to be trusted', why are you using it as a disqualifier for Tulsi? If nobody will fix our foreign policy, wouldn't it be better to turn our focus towards who has the best progressive domestic policy? Call Me Charlie posted:And again, if there is a real alternative to Tulsi, please tell me about them. Because, so far, your MO has been to smear the gently caress out of her and say there's plenty of alternatives without naming a single person. Give me somebody I can realistically support in the 2020 primaries who's anti-all those things you hate about Tulsi and pro-progressive domestic policy. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:She's not a 71 year old reality tv star who's policy seems to sway towards the position of whoever's talking to him at the moment. If your position is 'anybody who says they're going to try to walk back our disastrous foreign policy is exactly like Trump and not to be trusted', why are you using it as a disqualifier for Tulsi? If nobody will fix our foreign policy, wouldn't it be better to turn our focus towards who has the best progressive domestic policy? I like how you think this is a binary option: either we trust Gabbard 100%, or NO ONE CAN BE TRUSTED EVER, MAAAAAAN. How about instead we look at this like adults, ie: with a healthy dose of skepticism? And Gabbard may not be a septuagenarian reality star whose brain has been eaten away by syphilis and liberal coke use, but we do know that violence against Muslim civilians does not seem to be as big a problem for her as it is for most people. The fact that you just want to write that off as "Oh, well, it's foreign policy, but who cares? SINGLE PAYER!" shows that you really haven't thought about this all that deeply. Which is, I know, a shocking thing to say about someone who voted for Trump in a fit of pique. e: And as for your second dumbass quote, people have been naming names throughout the thread. Look for them yourself. Don't be lazy AND dumb. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Why do you continually duck my question? Why are you unable to give me any alternatives to Tulsi if the dem bench is so deep on people that oppose all war (from drone wars to ground wars to not toppling foreign governments) and support progressive domestic policy? So far, we have - Bernie (getting too old) - Warren (getting too old, leans establishment) - Ellison (harder sell than Tulsi, willing to carry water for the establishment) - Buttigieg (CSPAM's meme choice, mayor of South Bend Indiana, complete unknown on national and foreign issues) And I can name probably six other people likely to run in the primary but they're all either establishment people or business assholes like Dick Suckerberg.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Why focus on 2020 when we have 2018 to worry about first. So much can happen in that time, perhaps new people will emerge, perhaps some already in the running will drop out, it's not really productive to sit here and go "This person needs to run in 2020."
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Dick Suckerberg. Lol. As far as I can tell, the Tulsi hate is entirely about concern trolling. It's like how fishmech and Effectronica used to poo poo on Bernie for not being full communism. She sucks harder than Bernie, but I don't see how she is worse than HRC in any way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
So part of the problem with Bernie is that nobody knew who he was despite being in Congress for decades, and yet I'm supposed to believe we can magic a progressive bench out of thin air within 2-3 years, is that correct?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
call to action posted:So part of the problem with Bernie is that nobody knew who he was despite being in Congress for decades, and yet I'm supposed to believe we can magic a progressive bench out of thin air within 2-3 years, is that correct? Obama was a junior senator. People don't care about experience, that's what the loving 2016 election just showed us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
droning people who look like they might be the wrong religion is pretty establishment-leaning. tulsi is not a "realistic alternative" in either parts of the phrase. if it's a matter of you liking socialist policies on candidates that are also nationalist, then, well, I would hope that you are able to catch yourself before you fall for the same things that caused you to vote for donald j trump the anti-establishment bulldog and antiwar hope for the white working class e: it's bizarre that out of everyone possible that people could hitch their wagon to this far out they'd do it for them Rodatose fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Guys, predicting the future is basically impossible when it comes to political candidates. Who knew that Sanders existed pre-2016 primary? Who could have predicted his appearance on the national stage? There's no reason to get too attached to any one candidate now. Okay, if the next primary is literally between mark zuckerberg and tulsi gabbard, then maybe we can start weighing things out. As it is, we've got a lot of really good people entering the stage that didn't exist before. Don't latch onto anyone just yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Lol. I think most people criticizing her have said they would vote for her over Clinton. I would even vote for her over Elizabeth Warren. I just take issue with how willing certain people are to ignore the bad things about her and project what they want to see onto her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Yeah I agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Why do you continually duck my question? Why are you unable to give me any alternatives to Tulsi if the dem bench is so deep on people that oppose all war (from drone wars to ground wars to not toppling foreign governments) and support progressive domestic policy? "Getting too old" is the least convincing objection anyone has brought up, particularly for Warren. And as Rodatose pointed out, Gabbard is very willing to carry water for the establishment, just not on issues that you evidently care about. People have also brought up people like Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, and a few others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:droning people who look like they might be the wrong religion is pretty establishment-leaning. tulsi is not a "realistic alternative" in either parts of the phrase. I'm not sure how you can call the person who's funding was threatened over supporting Bernie, who's had calls from party members to primary her over Syria and has a general disregard towards making safe, but wrong, moves to advance her political career as establishment-leaning. rudatron posted:Guys, predicting the future is basically impossible when it comes to political candidates. Who knew that Sanders existed pre-2016 primary? Who could have predicted his appearance on the national stage? There's no reason to get too attached to any one candidate now. Okay, if the next primary is literally between mark zuckerberg and tulsi gabbard, then maybe we can start weighing things out. As it is, we've got a lot of really good people entering the stage that didn't exist before. Don't latch onto anyone just yet. It's not. I was able to see that Obama was going to make a run of it in 2008 after his 2004 DNC speech. Bernie was busy screaming into the void during Occupy with his filibuster. Sure it's hard to predict whether some type of horrible scandal will derail somebody's career (hello John Edwards) but whether they'll attempt to go national isn't that hard since they usually do something to position themselves before they jump. (like let's say Tulsi going to Standing Rock, meeting with Trump, going to Syria, endorsing Medicare For All, etc or Kirsten Gillibrand's recent shift towards pretending to be a progressive) Who are these people that are going to materialize out of thin air to give us somebody better than Tulsi on foreign policies while also having progressive domestic policies? If there's better people entering the stage, I'd like to know about them. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Obama was an establishment candidate, the point is that the field is open to non-establishment candidates in a way it wasn't before - okay, if you track internal dem elite politics, you can track new guys, but that's not the people that matter now
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
quote:I was able to see that Obama was going to make a run of it in 2008 after his 2004 DNC speech. Another sign was the cloud of media attention over him, such as the 2006 story about Obama storming out of a meeting with John McCain when they were discussing immigration reform. Trump is the candidate the GOP deserves. He won because his policies align much more closely with GOP polled positions than any other candidate. I don't think it's likely we'll see as big a policy-alignment gap as the gap between Trump and Ted Cruz or Trump and Rubio that can overcome an experience gap like his anytime soon in either party
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Why do you continually duck my question? Why are you unable to give me any alternatives to Tulsi if the dem bench is so deep on people that oppose all war (from drone wars to ground wars to not toppling foreign governments) and support progressive domestic policy? Herm yes, I'm sure you won't just declare everyone either too establishment or too unknown. Geez I wonder why no one bites on this bait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Obama was an establishment candidate, the point is that the field is open to non-establishment candidates in a way it wasn't before - okay, if you track internal dem elite politics, you can track new guys, but that's not the people that matter now Ok, so who's the big money whales that are close enough to the Democrats' centrist stance that they could realistically run? Dick Suckerberg's prepping to run. Mark Cuban? Michael Bloomberg? Bill Gates? (as stupid as that sounds they floated him as a VP pick to Hillary) The Rock? George Clooney? Probably not any TV pundit like Colbert since they would have to give up their slot. The point of this speculation is to show that there isn't some progressive celebrity/businessman that's going to appear on the horizon for 2020. Lots of centrists and unknowns. No progressives. Trabisnikof posted:Herm yes, I'm sure you won't just declare everyone either too establishment or too unknown. Geez I wonder why no one bites on this bait. it's because there's nobody that opposes Obama's war record (let alone every bit of the war on terror) who also supports progressive domestic policies. that person doesn't exist. it's much simplier to go 'it could be anybody' as they poison the well against tulsi until the primaries  that's what i'm challenging. i'd welcome some names i haven't heard but we all know they aren't coming. they know it. i know it.
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Oprah?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The point of this speculation is to show that there isn't some progressive celebrity/businessman that's going to appear on the horizon for 2020. Lots of centrists and unknowns. No progressives. While you're at it, Nostradamus, I could use the lotto numbers. Who would have predicted Trump in 2013? That's essentially what you're trying to do here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
How does Ellison carry water for the establishment? And what does makes him a hard sell, does that mean too Muslim, or what
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oprah? gently caress it, I'd vote for Oprah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:While you're at it, Nostradamus, I could use the lotto numbers. Trump was making a name for himself poltically since 2011 with all the birther poo poo. I doubt anybody could see it leading towards him becoming president of the united states but if you didn't think he was heading in some direction before his escalator ride, I don't know what to tell you. VitalSigns posted:Oprah? poo poo, that's a good one. Is she a progressive? VitalSigns posted:How does Ellison carry water for the establishment? Same things Tom Perez nailed him on. So yeah quote:A persistent smear campaign cost Ellison votes. In November and December, when it seemed that Ellison was on a glide path to victory, conservative websites and some Jewish groups went after him for his criticism of Israel's policy toward Palestinians and his defense of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. By Dec. 15, when Perez actually entered the race, Ellison had already apologized. And for much of the campaign, the issue was absent. The only flash point on the “anti-Semitism” charge came at a Huffington Post-moderated debate, where Ellison's rivals agreed that donor Haim Saban should apologize for calling Ellison an anti-Semite. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/26/why-did-keith-ellison-lose-the-dnc-race/ And carrying establishment water would be accepting the fake position they made up for him and subbing in for Perez when Perez refused to appear with Bernie over Heath Mello and generally being willing to say whatever line they give him to try to keep peace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Does Ellison's stance on Israel actually make him unelectable though? The DNC chair vote was a vote among party apparatchiks, shouldn't the fact that the establishment hates Ellison for not backing genocide to the hilt like a good party man raise his desirability in your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:On one hand, it's UBI based on resource exploitation, but on the other, he technically supports seizing the means of production. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Does Ellison's stance on Israel actually make him unelectable though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
call to action posted:So part of the problem with Bernie is that nobody knew who he was despite being in Congress for decades, and yet I'm supposed to believe we can magic a progressive bench out of thin air within 2-3 years, is that correct? Meanwhile, the Democratic establishment can run a loving intern in the most expensive Congressional race in history, and nobody even really gives them all that hard a time when they loving humiliate themselves and make the party look weak when it should be projecting strength. So I'm still kinda sympathetic to the mindset that we have to put someone up there who's been around DNC circles for years (and is therefore old and probably compromised as well), or has a shitload of money, or is famous, or something, anything to overcome the massive disadvantage any remotely anti-establishment candidate - progressive or not, really - will have going into the 2020 primary. I don't agree with it, because I adopted a "better to die on your feet" frame of mind shortly after the election, but my reasons there are at least as much emotional as they are rational. So yeah, why not, let's have loving Warren run and see what she can do. Or Dick Suckerberg. I'll vote for either once there's no other progressive left, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
nvm on my post
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Ro khanna and tulsi gabbard are triangulators who will say whatever they need to get more power. But at least they are triangulators with the good sense to see where the political winds are blowing, as opposed to idiots like hillary who chase mitt Romney voters None of the above should be president Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
This thread is operating on the assumption of getting to pick exactly which person will be the democratic candidate, which they will not. If the choice is between someone like Tulsi and someone like Clinton, then what do you pick?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
None of the above probably in that situation
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
given that Schumer, probably the biggest Israel flack in the party and platonic ideal of an establishment man, backed Ellison for DNC chair, i think Ellisons unpalability might be overstated
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
I'm not saying Tulsi is perfect by a long shot but the fact that 85% of the criticism of her seems to be disingenuous histrionic bullshit from neoliberals is very telling to me. Neoliberals don't care about Modi or dead brown people. They care about corporate power structures and their own positions within them. The fact that they are freaking out so much over her so badly means that she is a threat to those structures and by extension exactly the kind of person we need in power (albeit maybe not the presidency itself).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
you caught me, im actually Tom Perez, here to spread disingenuous neoliberal bullshit. and i would have gotten away with it if it wasnt for you meddling kids
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
I've already stated my views, but I find this exchange simultaneously extremely funny and extremely depressing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Tulsi is going to be a nobody in 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Because you've got to wonder to the extent this thing is going to play out more broadly, in the future - a center that has reflexively declared anything and everything it doesn't like as racist, sexist or otherwise bad-think, versus the rest of the country that does not care what it has to say, and is finding less reason to care. Even supposing the next candidates are all turbo-hitlers, what reason does anyone have to believe people who have blatantly sold themselves out, even if they happen to correctly point out that situation? More than simply a crisis of bad policy, because there is that, there's also a crisis of legitimacy. Like all the people in the primary who were sure this scandal was gonna sink Trump, and it just never happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:given that Schumer, probably the biggest Israel flack in the party and platonic ideal of an establishment man, backed Ellison for DNC chair, i think Ellisons unpalability might be overstated Yeah, Schumer's the crackiest crackwhore in a city of whores, but he's also someone who can see which way the wind blows. I find it encouraging that it's apparently in Ellison's direction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:I'm not saying Tulsi is perfect by a long shot but the fact that 85% of the criticism of her seems to be disingenuous histrionic bullshit from neoliberals is very telling to me. Neoliberals don't care about Modi or dead brown people. They care about corporate power structures and their own positions within them. The fact that they are freaking out so much over her so badly means that she is a threat to those structures and by extension exactly the kind of person we need in power (albeit maybe not the presidency itself). While I understand why you might feel this way, "liberals don't like this person, therefore they're probably good" is some pretty bad logic. In this case, it's entirely possible for neoliberals to simultaneously be histrionic and overexaggerating Gabbard's bad traits and for Gabbard to still be pretty bad. I generally share the view of several other people in this thread (that I would prefer her to someone similar to Clinton, but ideally I wouldn't have to make that choice). As for the comparison between Gabbard and Warren, Warren at least has a professional history of fighting against the finance industry and advocating for issues related to wealth inequality. I don't think she's a leftist and wouldn't have particularly high expectations of her, but there's more reason to trust her than there is Gabbard when it comes to left-wing economic policy specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I understand why you might feel this way, "liberals don't like this person, therefore they're probably good" is some pretty bad logic. Exactly, and I'm a little mystified at people being so drat certain that Gabbard is a bona fide leftist, too. She's good on single payer, but there's really nothing in her platform that strikes me as particularly out-of-step with the standard left-Dem's - except for the rather unpalatable points we've already discussed at length here. The only evidence the Gabbard fans here seem to be relying on are, A: she supports single payer (but woop-de-poo poo, so do a lot of likely candidates), and B: the DNC hates her. That's a pretty weak foundation for casting her as the next Sanders IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:23
|
|