Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m well aware the media will get people to care but her original story that she’s stated from the beginning still checks out. 

DyrseEwXcAAEWkP?format=jpg&name=medium

JFC our media is dogshit.

Her original story has always been fine. It also had already sunk her. This is just another log on the fire. She is toast. You know how the conservative hate machine works. Trump could wear an Indian headdress, declare the Redskins name PC, and kill an Indian onstage in a debate with her, and Fox News will give him a landslide victory and call him a champion of Indian rights.  Unfortunately, the Dem candidate needs to appear completely flawless. Its why late runs like Obama's are the most successful. He was President before they started birtherism. 

She needs to bow out before it starts fucking with her next Senate election. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Unfortunately, the Dem candidate needs to appear completely flawless.

In order to... what?

The conservatives are going to go after any Dem regardless of anything. There is literally no way to make FOX News not be horrible to a Democrat.

Obama is the cleanest, most interpersonally charming, and inoffensive partisan politician you could imagine and FOX News worked for a decade to turn him into a dog-eating Satan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

In order to... what?

The conservatives are going to go after any Dem regardless of anything. There is literally no way to make FOX News not be horrible to a Democrat.

Obama is the cleanest, most interpersonally charming, and inoffensive partisan politician you could imagine and FOX News worked for a decade to turn him into a dog-eating Satan.

Is it just too much to hope that we get a candidate who will actually fight back to enforce regulation against all the god damned insane millionaires and billionaires that really drive policy in this country? This sucks for Warren, but it's also insane to me that there are supposed liberal posters here telling her she shouldn't run while simultaneously praising someone like Harris who admitted that she had to prosecute mothers of truants and had to ensure that prisoners were basically indentured servants. It's amazing what does and doesn't matter for some people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I want to see her with have power in the Senate with a Democratic House and President.   I think her legislating would have a bigger impact, by far.

Respectfully disagree, to get the legislation she wants, she’s going to need the leadership role to drive home the narrative using her bully pulpit.  Her as the executive gives her the power to drive public opinion and that’s where the real power lies.  Trump is living proof of this.

Also important to remember democrats are almost as spineless as republicans 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

MSNBC contributor upset that a Dem Presidential candidate doesn't support a pointless conflict with a country that has fuck all to do with us.  

 

I wonder how many more people died in Syria from Obama's decision to train and arm the rebels.  Funny that no one talks about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted

I'm not even really a Gabbard fan (anyone who spends 70% of their "I want to be president" speech talking about how noble the troops are and how we're going to die in a nuclear fireball loses me pretty quickly), but are there any actual connections between her and Russia? Does she have financial or personal interests there? Is she connected to powerful Russians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not even really a Gabbard fan (anyone who spends 70% of their "I want to be president" speech talking about how noble the troops are and how we're going to die in a nuclear fireball loses me pretty quickly), but are there any actual connections between her and Russia? Does she have financial or personal interests there? Is she connected to powerful Russians?

She has a Russian troll and bot army backing her.  

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

I'm not saying she is connected to Russia but she, or any other candidate, needs to publicly reject this kind of support if they want to be taken seriously IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Tulsi still has a weird super anti-gay past regardless of what she says now, that's how it works.

Her dad apparently is/was a pretty extreme anti-LGBT activist.  Coming from that background, it's understandable that she would have some pretty bad views growing up.  My dad is pretty conservative and that certainly rubbed off on me.  Given her support for legislation making discriminating against LGBT illegal, it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that she would not support LGBT rights as President.  I also think it's absurd that her past is being hung around her as disqualifying when people like Hillary and Biden were hardly champions for LGBT rights until it became politically expedient.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

My body is ready for all the ~*electability*~ discussion we're going to fucking get with any of these candidates, it really doesn't matter if it's Warren or not at this point, they're going to be demonized.

I want my part to vet all the candidates strongly. Run them thru the gauntlet because it's only going to get worse when they are the nominee. 

Or else you end up with the situation in Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Her dad apparently is/was a pretty extreme anti-LGBT activist.  Coming from that background, it's understandable that she would have some pretty bad views growing up.  My dad is pretty conservative and that certainly rubbed off on me.  Given her support for legislation making discriminating against LGBT illegal, it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that she would not support LGBT rights as President.  I also think it's absurd that her past is being hung around her as disqualifying when people like Hillary and Biden were hardly champions for LGBT rights until it became politically expedient.  

Did Hillary and Biden push for conversion therapy?

Seriously, why do you like her? What has she actually done to lead you to believe that she would be a good president? Or is this some weird troll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She has a Russian troll and bot army backing her.  

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

I'm not saying she is connected to Russia but she, or any other candidate, needs to publicly reject this kind of support if they want to be taken seriously IMO

Quote

But the whole story was a sham: The only “expert” cited by NBC in support of its key claim was the firm New Knowledge, which just got caught by the New York Times fabricating Russian troll accounts on behalf of the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to manufacture false accusations that the Kremlin was interfering in that election.

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia-supports-tulsi-gabbard-relies-on-firm-just-caught-fabricating-russia-data-for-the-democratic-party/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She has a Russian troll and bot army backing her.  

Here's what your article actually says:

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Here's what your article actually says:

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

Yeah, it's just a coincidence Tulsi is the darling of the alt-right, David Duke, Richard Spencer, and the Russians as if these groups don't run together. 

This is observable. 

 

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
Just now, GSU&UT said:

Did Hillary and Biden push for conversion therapy?

Seriously, why do you like her? What has she actually done to lead you to believe that she would be a good president? Or is this some weird troll. 

She pushed it to assist her dad's advocacy.  Obviously that is wrong and she has apologized for those actions, but her turn is understandable in light of her background. 

I like Tulsi because she is willing to say things about US foreign policy (the area in which the President has the most control) that no one else - including Bernie - is willing to say.  She is not apologetic about it either.  She's obviously not going to win, but it would be healthy for her to make her presence known in the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, it's just a coincidence Tulsi is the darling of the alt-right, David Duke, Richard Spencer, and the Russians as if these groups don't run together. 

This is observable.

It's not a coincidence. Tulsi is the most anti-imperialist of all the Dem nominees so far and those people are also anti-imperialists. She wants to reduce America's military reach into the world and those people also want to reduce America's military reach into the world. This isn't hard to follow and it doesn't require a nefarious, shadowy conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not a coincidence. Tulsi is the most anti-imperialist of all the Dem nominees so far and those people are also anti-imperialists. She wants to reduce America's military reach into the world and those people also want to reduce America's military reach into the world. This isn't hard to follow and it doesn't require a nefarious, shadowy conspiracy.

Thanks, You just explained why Russia would want to throw a lot of support her way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28797

Posted
Posted

I caught Tulsi Gabbard on Morning Joe today. I had no opinion about her. She kind of seemed like an idiot. She dodged every question about whether Assad is our friend or not, or whether he used chemical weapons on his own people. She didn't handle the interview well at all. And she had the vocal fry thing going on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTDD

UTDD 362

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Our media is dogshit but this is a mess of her own making.

She’s bungling easy stuff and she made it a bigger deal when she did the DNA test and made it an event.

That’s on her - not the media. She played right into their hands and played herself.

I think she’s brilliant and has really great policy ideas.

But she’s seems to be a terrible politician.

In the liberal utopia we all wished we lived in, that shouldn’t matter.

But in the real world, that shit matters. A lot.

Yeah.  I think you nailed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26468

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

For example, her saying something like this during a Dem debate would be a big deal.  It would make visible something that is traditionally off limits for discussion.

 

 

Tulsi underestimates Latin America's historical ability to destroy itself with or without US intervention. EG, no shortage of info condemning William Walker and his filibusters taking over Nicaragua for a couple of years, but almost no mention of the preceding Nicaraguan civil wars that wrecked the place and made it possible for some dude from Nashville + assorted gunslingers to knock it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

 

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I caught Tulsi Gabbard on Morning Joe today. I had no opinion about her. She kind of seemed like an idiot. She dodged every question about whether Assad is our friend or not, or whether he used chemical weapons on his own people. She didn't handle the interview well at all. And she had the vocal fry thing going on. 

She didn't answer the question because it's a stupid fucking question.  There is no need to place each country into either the "bestie" box or the "enemy" box.  It's not that simple - our interests (the interests of the American people, not just of defense contractors or The Blob) may align with country X in some ways and run counter in other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26468

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I caught Tulsi Gabbard on Morning Joe today. I had no opinion about her. She kind of seemed like an idiot. She dodged every question about whether Assad is our friend or not, or whether he used chemical weapons on his own people. She didn't handle the interview well at all. And she had the vocal fry thing going on. 

People will always oppose our first vocal fry president.

But I do need to know if she said "throw ____ under the bus". References to throwing people under a bus are a reliable marker that you are listening to a non-creative mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Tulsi underestimates Latin America's historical ability to destroy itself with or without US intervention. EG, no shortage of info condemning William Walker and his filibusters taking over Nicaragua for a couple of years, but almost no mention of the preceding Nicaraguan civil wars that wrecked the place and made it possible for some dude from Nashville + assorted gunslingers to knock it over.

Umm, the US was interfering back then as well.

Quote

In the years leading up to the First World War, the United States and Mexican governments competed for political influence in Central America. As a result, the U.S. Government intervened more directly in Nicaraguan affairs in two separate, but related, incidents in 1911 and 1912, with the objective of ensuring the rule of a government friendly to U.S. political and commercial interests and preserving political stability in Central America. Although officials within the administration of President William H. Taft saw themselves as intervening to ensure good government, many Nicaraguans became increasingly alarmed at what seemed to be a foreign takeover of their political, banking, and railroad systems.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ip/108629.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26468

Posted
Posted
Just now, Fozzz said:

Umm, the US was interfering back then as well.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ip/108629.htm

William Walker was from the 1850s. He was eventually shut down by Vanderbilt pulling support, then by the British, whose navy ruled the Caribbean.

But that is a detail-- you are of course right, as we sit on a message board devoted to a Mexican province first detached by similar US adventurers, and shortly afterwards permanently taken by the US gov. We grabbed Florida from the Spanish earlier than that, sort of a practice run for Texas.

To my point, there's a reason it worked going south, and not north-- we tried the same stunts on Canada, and got whooped. The old Spanish world was weak. Mexico had maybe 5 presidents trying to fight us during the Mexican War, which lasted maybe what, a year? Why does a society throw up 5 presidents while fighting for its territory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...