2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Major-Tom]

A representative from HI, who’s also a Major in the HI National Gaurd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

She was a medic in Iraq. She’s fucking badass

And also a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, an antisemite, an Assad apologist, and a dictator sympathizer.

For LGBT Rights, condemns police brutality, divisive republican policies, and republican immigration policies on a regular basis.

If you’re going for the smear, at least have some credibility.

Her stances on Assad worry me, sure, but everything else you’ve posted is 110% unsubstantiated, false, and I really don’t know why you thought your post was reasonable tbh.

[Major-Tom]

Anyways, I think Gabbard will be an interesting candidate who can spice up the primaries. Not sure if I’d vote for her. I have some major grievances with her on a few issues, but as a whole, II think she’s performed quite admirably as a member of the House of Reps.

[Major-Tom]

Dear God, not Tulsi. She's a bigot in DINO clothing.


It'll be a cold day in hell.

Yeah, let's not stoop to the low level of some Republicans with RINO/DINO accusations, or by nominating Gabbard. She is a horrible Nominee. Bigoted Antisemite who is the closest thing we have to an actual Nazi in the Democratic party, and believe me, the Republicans will take advantage of that.

You have the tone, lack of substantiation and visceral hatred of a politician that someone on Fox News would.

Seriously, how do people get Bigoted Antisemite from fucking Gabbard? Jesus Christ. She has pivoted herself as a progressive with an independent streak. Wanna see a real bigot? Look at King in Iowa.

[Major-Tom]

For LGBT Rights, condemns police brutality, divisive republican policies, and republican immigration policies on a regular basis.

If you’re going for the smear, at least have some credibility.

Her stances on Assad worry me, sure, but everything else you’ve posted is 110% unsubstantiated, false, and I really don’t know why you thought your post was reasonable tbh.

She is simply an ambitious Opportunist who is a danger to everything American.

EDIT: Never thought I'd see the day when I used that website.

Read between the lines. Jacobin, it’s own credibility notwithstanding, essentially boils down their distrust of her to a myriad of factors, including;

(1. Changing her positions on two key social issues.
(2. Admiring the Indian Prime Minister.
(3. Having an admittedly less than stellar amount of awareness of the world when it comes to some of her foreign policy moves.
(4. The fact that some people don’t distrust her, and the fact that some republicans sorta thought she was okay.

Sure, I can see why people have their issues with her. I do as well. My question is, what the fuck are you doing calling her a nazi or bigot who will “destroy America” for?

That’s fucking ridiculous, guy. This is what I hate around these forums, there’s no nuance anymore, someone has some legitimate grievances with a candidate and immediately they make the said candidate out to be some sort of monster.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

She is simply an ambitious Opportunist who is a danger to everything American.

EDIT: Never thought I'd see the day when I used that website.

Read between the lines. Jacobin, it’s own credibility notwithstanding, essentially boils down their distrust of her to a myriad of factors, including;

(1. Changing her positions on two key social issues.
(2. Admiring the Indian Prime Minister.
(3. Having an admittedly less than stellar amount of awareness of the world when it comes to some of her foreign policy moves.
(4. The fact that some people don’t distrust her, and the fact that some republicans sorta thought she was okay.

Sure, I can see why people have their issues with her. I do as well. My question is, what the fuck are you doing calling her a nazi or bigot who will “destroy America” for?

That’s fucking ridiculous, guy. This is what I hate around these forums, there’s no nuance anymore, someone has some legitimate grievances with a candidate and immediately they make the said candidate out to be some sort of monster.

Welcome to politics, where you are shunned and ignored if you aren't an ultra-Death-Nazi or mecha-Trotsky-Posadas.

Compromise? Nuance? Understanding? What's that!?

[Major-Tom]

Read between the lines. Jacobin, it’s own credibility notwithstanding, essentially boils down their distrust of her to a myriad of factors, including;

(1. Changing her positions on two key social issues.
(2. Admiring the Indian Prime Minister.
(3. Having an admittedly less than stellar amount of awareness of the world when it comes to some of her foreign policy moves.
(4. The fact that some people don’t distrust her, and the fact that some republicans sorta thought she was okay.

Sure, I can see why people have their issues with her. I do as well. My question is, what the fuck are you doing calling her a nazi or bigot who will “destroy America” for?

That’s fucking ridiculous, guy.

1: There's a strong argument for it being opportunistic, seeing the winds change.
2: Modi is a crappy leader, and dangerous.
3: Yeah...supporting a genocidal dictator....I don't see her as qualified for being a politician, much less president, due to her record.
4:It's exactly who doesn't distrust her and for what reasons. It's not the fact some republicans thought she was ok, it's what they think she's ok for.

You could say the same about probably half of the prominent Democrats per your first point tbh.

Secondly, Modi is pretty shitty, dunno about dangerous.

Third, yeah, the Assad thing bugs me. As I said, I probably wouldn't vote for her. My point is really that I hate seeing people who I know to be pretty level-headed and reasonable (IE yourself) stooping to Tea Party levels of scare tactics (the nazi thing, full on bigot thing, dangerous for America etc).

It tends to irk me when people can't just focus on the issues they have with a person, and stick to that basis, instead of getting up in arms about it.

[Shrillland]

1: There's a strong argument for it being opportunistic, seeing the winds change.
2: Modi is a crappy leader, and dangerous.
3: Yeah...supporting a genocidal dictator....I don't see her as qualified for being a politician, much less president, due to her record.
4:It's exactly who doesn't distrust her and for what reasons. It's not the fact some republicans thought she was ok, it's what they think she's ok for.

You could say the same about probably half of the prominent Democrats per your first point tbh.

Secondly, Modi is pretty shitty, dunno about dangerous.

Third, yeah, the Assad thing bugs me. As I said, I probably wouldn't vote for her. My point is really that I hate seeing people who I know to be pretty level-headed and reasonable (IE yourself) stooping to Tea Party levels of scare tactics (the nazi thing, full on bigot thing, dangerous for America etc).

It tends to irk me when people can't just focus on the issues they have with a person, and stick to that basis, instead of getting up in arms about it.

As I see it, her domestic views are good, it's just her cynical foreign policy that should've died with the Cold War that keeps me from actually voting for her myself.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Gabbard is running!! Gabbard/Ojeda 2020!!

As long as they are sane, they get my support.

A representative from HI, who’s also a Major in the HI National Gaurd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

She was a medic in Iraq. She’s fucking badass

And also a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, an antisemite, an Assad apologist, and a dictator sympathizer.

Doesn't mater. What matters is that she is sane.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Gabbard is running!! Gabbard/Ojeda 2020!!

As long as they are sain, they get my support.

And also a bigot, a homophobe, a racist, an antisemite, an Assad apologist, and a dictator sympathizer.

Doesn't mater. What matters is that she is sain.

Sane, not sain, my friend.

Being primarily Francophone, the way my internal voice is attempting to pronounce "sain" (which is "sane" in French) is "saint", and we all know ol' Don ain't much of a saint.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

As long as they are sain, they get my support.



Doesn't mater. What matters is that she is sain.

Sane, not sain, my friend.

Being primarily Francophone, the way my internal voice is attempting to pronounce "sain" (which is "sane" in French) is "saint", and we all know ol' Don ain't much of a saint.

Sorry, I've never been a great speller.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Sane, not sain, my friend.

Being primarily Francophone, the way my internal voice is attempting to pronounce "sain" (which is "sane" in French) is "saint", and we all know ol' Don ain't much of a saint.

Sorry, I've never been a great speller.

Thank yourself that you do not live in the world of Harry Potter then!

(Goddamn leftists and their endless Harry Potter comparisons...)

[Ngelmish]

I was talking about primary dynamics, actually, there have 6 open ones this century. In 2004 Dean flamed out and Kerry and Edwards were the only two strong candidates standing. In 2008 none of the Democratic governors caught on and Romney indeed flamed out. In 2012 Romney did win, I'll admit. In 2016 Ted Cruz was the most viable alternative to Trump and Sanders to Clinton. In this election is there a Democratic governor you expect to be catching fire?

Governors have been punching under their weight in nominating contests for three cycles in a row, all things considered and it looks like it's holding steady for this election. That's a trend.

Still looks like you're working back from your conclusion, but whatever. Sure. Trends take that little.

Yes, you have a conclusion other than the fact that governors have been underperforming for a minute

[United States of Natan]

Dear God, not Tulsi. She's a bigot in DINO clothing.


It'll be a cold day in hell.

Yeah, let's not stoop to the low level of some Republicans with RINO/DINO accusations, or by nominating Gabbard. She is a horrible Nominee. Bigoted Antisemite who is the closest thing we have to an actual Nazi in the Democratic party, and believe me, the Republicans will take advantage of that.

EXACTLY what I've been saying! I'm Jewish, so hell will freeze over before I'm caught dead voting for an antisemite, or a bigot in general. If I have to, I'll write in Hillary.

[Page]

I told myself that if Tulsi Gabbard runs I'd get involved with her campaign, and I'm going to try to do that. Which is a little difficult since I'm an expat, but hey it's the internet age, I'll make it work.

Despite the fact that I typically view Democrats as lesser evils, I actually like her. I was willing to vote for Warren or Ojeda, but now Tulsi's running and I want her to win.

[The Archregimancy]

Sure, I can see why people have their issues with her. I do as well. My question is, what the fuck are you doing calling her a nazi or bigot who will “destroy America” for?

That’s fucking ridiculous, guy. This is what I hate around these forums, there’s no nuance anymore, someone has some legitimate grievances with a candidate and immediately they make the said candidate out to be some sort of monster.

It's a problem with politics generally in the internet age, not just NSG.

I'd like to see some considered and informative discussion of Gabbard's pro and cons, not over the top accusations that she's a Nazi . Frankly, the latter only lead me to think that the opinion of the individual can be ignored.

You can do better, NSG.

This strikes me as a measured summary of Gabbard: https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2018/ ... tml#item-7

Key pros and cons from that link:

Three Biggest Pros: (1) If Bernie passes the torch to her, that's a huge boost right there; (2) Given her military record and her pro-soldier stances, she might get some crossover votes from more traditional Republicans who loathe Trump; and (3) A young, female, minority candidate should interest hard-to-get-to-the-polls young voters in a way that an older white man probably wouldn't

Three Biggest Cons: (1) A Hindu woman of color born in American Samoa—one can only imagine what the Alex Joneses of the world will come up with; (2) Her visit to Syria and her generally sympathetic views on Bashar al-Assad are not going to help her with Democrats or Republicans; and (3) She has assiduously avoided debates in her political career, having only participated in one, which suggests that she's not all that comfortable under the bright lights—not a good thing, particularly that we are now in the era of endless candidate debates

[Conserative Morality]

100% behind Gabbard. Tulsi 2020! Already donated.

[Senyosu]

My mind has to be stopped since every mention of Gabbard just sends my worse half screaming "Wow a Hindutva Surfer President if this happens" when it's much more nuanced than that.

I don't think she can net in popularity beyond the fringes, although as far as I have looked into what she has done and said, I am behind a much tougher stance against Saudi Arabia (although other candidates seem to follow suit, so nothing remarkable here beyond the fact she may act upon it) and double down on Pakistan's wishy washy attitude on the Taliban and other terror organizations that have implicit backing (although I am less happy with her more neocon approach, personally preferring dialogue over what she may have in mind). Assad is a hit or miss for me but a big definite miss for the political landscape of the USA. Yikes. Also may see Turkey as a bigger boogeyman which could cause issues shall we say.

Domestically she's somewhat alright, although seems to skirt on the Islamophobism ish kinda sorta maybe a bit more than she should.

So she may not be the best candidate since well, she may hit some wrong notes a little too hard. And the GOP/alex jone types would have a field day with her oh boy.

side note pls no biden or clinton because i think we learned that the "coastal elite" club did not work in 2016 let's not push our luck here Dems or make same/similar mistakes

[United States of Natan]

I just want to punch my hand into something really hard out of frustration that so many people seem completely oblivious to her record which should disqualify her as a Democratic candidate. I mean, there would be riots if Hillary Clinton was a homophobic, racist, antisemitic, bigoted former cultist masquerading as a Democrat, who supports Assad and other dictators. She'd have been run out of the country. And yet so many on the far left seem quick to jump on the Tulsi Train. It just dumbfounds me why they don't do their own research. I only hope that the media vets her, which they failed to do for Bernie.

[Thermodolia]

You could say the same about probably half of the prominent Democrats per your first point tbh.

Secondly, Modi is pretty shitty, dunno about dangerous.

Third, yeah, the Assad thing bugs me. As I said, I probably wouldn't vote for her. My point is really that I hate seeing people who I know to be pretty level-headed and reasonable (IE yourself) stooping to Tea Party levels of scare tactics (the nazi thing, full on bigot thing, dangerous for America etc).

It tends to irk me when people can't just focus on the issues they have with a person, and stick to that basis, instead of getting up in arms about it.

As I see it, her domestic views are good, it's just her cynical foreign policy that should've died with the Cold War that keeps me from actually voting for her myself.

Because invading Iraq was a great idea. And bombing the shit out of Libya was a great thing to do. We should totally do the same to Syria. What do you mean Iraq and Libya are terrorists infested hellholes?

[Thermodolia]

I just want to punch my hand into something really hard out of frustration that so many people seem completely oblivious to her record which should disqualify her as a Democratic candidate.

Oh so sad that people don’t want your uber crazy lady who said that the second amendment should be repealed. I’m so sorry the rest of us want someone who can ya know win in places that aren’t NY and CA.

I mean, there would be riots if Hillary Clinton was a homophobic, racist, antisemitic,

I didn’t see any riots when Clinton was nominated. Also Gabbard isn’t racist or antisemitic or homophobic. And unlike Hillary “I’m against gay marriage” Clinton she changed her mind after serving in Iraq and not because her opponent for the nomination said gays are cool.

bigoted former cultist masquerading as a Democrat, who supports Assad and other dictators.

Yes because invading every goddamn nation on the planet because dictator man bad is the best thing ever and has never ever messed up. Pay no mind to the fact that Iraq and Libya are worse off than before we “helped”

She'd have been run out of the country.

And that’s why Trump and Pence aren’t in office. Oh wait...

And yet so many on the far left seem quick to jump on the Tulsi Train. It just dumbfounds me why they don't do their own research. I only hope that the media vets her, which they failed to do for Bernie.

I’m sure they actually have do there own research and the majority aren’t for invading every goddamn nation on the planet, they aren’t for candidates who are super crazy, and nor are they for supper polished focus groupped candidates

[Thermodolia]

Yeah, let's not stoop to the low level of some Republicans with RINO/DINO accusations, or by nominating Gabbard. She is a horrible Nominee. Bigoted Antisemite who is the closest thing we have to an actual Nazi in the Democratic party, and believe me, the Republicans will take advantage of that.

EXACTLY what I've been saying! I'm Jewish, so hell will freeze over before I'm caught dead voting for an antisemite, or a bigot in general. If I have to, I'll write in Hillary.

You voted for Clinton. So you should have no trouble voting for a bigot.

[Knockturn Alley]

Yeah, let's not stoop to the low level of some Republicans with RINO/DINO accusations, or by nominating Gabbard. She is a horrible Nominee. Bigoted Antisemite who is the closest thing we have to an actual Nazi in the Democratic party, and believe me, the Republicans will take advantage of that.

EXACTLY what I've been saying! I'm Jewish, so hell will freeze over before I'm caught dead voting for an antisemite, or a bigot in general. If I have to, I'll write in Hillary.

Can you provide some source on her antisemitism?

[Valrifell]

If the actual elections are anything like this thread then the primaries will be so damaging we'd be fucked regardless of who we picked.

"Yer candidate would only win in NY and CA" is as thoughtful and conversation-motivating as "your candidate's a fucking bigot" (weird that everyone loves that point regardless)

That is to say, not at all.

[Thermodolia]

EXACTLY what I've been saying! I'm Jewish, so hell will freeze over before I'm caught dead voting for an antisemite, or a bigot in general. If I have to, I'll write in Hillary.

Can you provide some source on her antisemitism?

Don’t bother asking because it doesn’t exist. I checked. Found a lot of things criticizing her for supporting Israel but nothing about her being an antisemite

[Bahktar]

Oh so sad that people don’t want your uber crazy lady who said that the second amendment should be repealed. I’m so sorry the rest of us want someone who can ya know win in places that aren’t NY and CA.

Except, Hillary Clinton never said she wants to repeal the second amendment.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... nton-want/

I didn’t see any riots when Clinton was nominated. Also Gabbard isn’t racist or antisemitic or homophobic. And unlike Hillary “I’m against gay marriage” Clinton she changed her mind after serving in Iraq and not because her opponent for the nomination said gays are cool.

You misunderstood him here. He's making a comparison that if Clinton was like Gabbard, which said person thinks is "homophobic, racist, antisemitic," then there would have been riots. He's not saying Clinton is.

Hillary Clinton didn't change her mind because her opponent said "gays are cool", as public opinion shifted for same-sex marriage, so did Clinton's views.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... -marriage/

Yes because invading every goddamn nation on the planet because dictator man bad is the best thing ever and has never ever messed up. Pay no mind to the fact that Iraq and Libya are worse off than before we “helped”

Cosying up to authoritarian dictators who use chemical weapons against their own people also isn't the best thing ever. Pay mind to the fact that Libya and Syria started their revolts by themselves and the USA didn't instigate said revolts.

And that’s why Trump and Pence aren’t in office. Oh wait...

His point here is that if Hillary Clinton was such a person, she would be even more vilified, trashed and blamed, because she's Clinton.

I’m sure they actually have do there own research and the majority aren’t for invading every goddamn nation on the planet, they aren’t for candidates who are super crazy, and nor are they for supper polished focus groupped candidates

Yes, I did my own research and googled "Hillary Clinton repeal second amendment repeal" and "Hillary Clinton gay marriage", which seemed to disprove your statements earlier, unless something has changed since those Politifact analysis pages were made, I think I did my research.
There are many reasons to dislike Gabbard. While she is an "anti-Democratic establishment Democratic politician", which is probably one of the reasons why she gained attention in 2016, I don't really like Gabbard because to me, she, to me, embodies the chance of another shift to the right for the Democratic Party.

Her father, Mike Gabbard was a senator and Honolulu councilman and was known for his high profile anti-gay activism against same-sex marriage, going even so far to create an educational nonprofit organization "Stop Promoting Homosexuality" and a show on the local radio station to denounce LGBT people. Of course, early in her career, Gabbard took after her father, opposing abortion and supporting a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and woman. in 2004, Gabbard accused a magazine supporting his fathers' opponent, calling them "homosexual extremist supporters", the same year she testified against civil unions and stated, "As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."
Of course, since then, she has done a total 180 degree turn, the same for her stance on abortion. However, her Democratic Party LGBT caucus distrusts her and backed her primary opponent in 2016. When she was asked to send someone to testify at a legislative special session on same-sex marriage, they were told that Gabbard "doesn't get involved in state politics," while all her Hawaii'an colleagues sent representatives.
While she doesn't actively work against gay rights, her loyalty to such a cause still remains questionable.

Her positions on Islamic extremism are also somewhat alarming. While I think Islamic extremism is certainly a horrible thing, she used to constantly call out Obama and others for not using the words "Islamic extremism". While I could agree, she seems to think that "Islamic extremism" is the only driving force behind ISIS and other radical Muslim states. It's as if Gabbard is saying Muslim people are born extremist and will fight for an extremist ideology simply because, well, they will, rather than because of lack of governance and stability, and other factors which induce people to join extremist organizations.

"Gabbard’s insistence that economic factors play no role in fostering extremism, and in fueling ISIS specifically, is belied by the facts. The group pays its recruiters thousands of dollars, and Hamas officers have explicitly outlined how the promise of money has drawn Gazans to ISIS. “Those in Syria often send pictures back home showing large banknotes to lure others out,” one officer told journalist Sarah Helm."

Her hardline stance is also carried over to refugees, wherein she joined Democrats in 2015 to pass the SAFE Act, which would have added extra requirements for the already onerous refugee vetting system and would effectively halt to the ground the admission of Syrian & Iraqi refugees. Two months before that, she also introduced a resolution for the US to prioritize religious and ethnic minorities, such as Christians and Yezidis when granting refugee status, which in essence is a position putting more roadblocks in the admission of Syrian refugees, while prioritizing and making an exception for Christians, simply because they are Christians.

Following the 2016 elections, she also cosied up to Republicans when holding talks with Trump in a meeting with Steve Bannon, wherein sources said that at the time, Bannon "loves her," and "wants to work with her on everything," and that she would fit in the administration, interestingly enough, she was also missing from a letter House Democrats signed calling for Trump to rescind Bannon's appointment. She also has a great friend - Narenda Modi - who is India's Prime Minister, but who started his political career as an activist in a right-wing nationalist organization which was banned for four times, in 2014, he threatened to deport undocumented immigrants, most of which who are Muslim, calling them "infiltrators" and was Gujarat's state minister during the time when anti-Muslim riots left around 800 dead Muslims and 1,000 dead in total, with a former police officer testifying that Modi had said the night before the riots that Muslims needed to be taught a lesson.

In the end, she didn't get the job in Trump's cabinet, which might explain her softening stances recently.
I don't think Tulsi Gabbard is especially bad. But should the Democratic Party really nominate someone like her, who has questionable friends and her positions themselves have been questionable in the past.
However, I don't think the Democratic Party should be supporting someone, who back a year or so ago, would have been an easy candidate for Trump's cabinet.