How about you throw in Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson and Stan from American Dad just to crown the fucking pile of manure that are celebrities running for the position of President?
Advertisement
by Western Vale Confederacy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:53 pm
by Bahktar » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:58 pm
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:How about you throw in Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson and Stan from American Dad just to crown the fucking pile of manure that are celebrities running for the position of President?
by Salandriagado » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:00 pm
Shrillland wrote:Bahktar wrote:
I think there are better candidates than Gabbard which is obvious considering my statements the past 2 pages, but I would really want to see in what way Tulsi Gabbard is supposedly anti-semitic. Please provide some sort of factual evidence, rather than, "I'm a Jew, so I know it."
Is it be cause of Syria?
It could be because she's more critical of Israel than some others , but criticising Israel's separation policies doesn't, IMO, equate to outright antisemitism.
by The Archregimancy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:36 pm
by Bahktar » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:43 pm
by Major-Tom » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:10 pm
Ngelmish wrote:Major-Tom wrote:Also, Castro has announced he will be running. I don't see him exactly inspiring that many voters, though I'm sure he can wrangle together a sizable amount of fundraising.
Presumably he's trying to get out in front of a potential O'Rourke candidacy. I doubt it'll be much help for him one way or the other.
by Major-Tom » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:11 pm
The Archregimancy wrote:Leaving aside the disagreements - and the slightly heated thread rhetoric - over her actual politics, I don't for a second think that Tulsi Gabbard has the slightest chance of being elected president in 2020.
I just don't think the United States is going to elect a 39-year-old* half-Polynesian vegetarian Hindu woman from American Samoa who represents Hawaii in Congress as its president.
Is that fair? Almost certainly not. Is it realistic? Likely yes.
Even leaving aside all of the other factors, she'd be the youngest person elected to the presidency by a good four years (beating Kennedy; Theodore Roosevelt was a year younger than Kennedy on assuming office, but wasn't elected). She'd also only the be the second person to be elected to to the presidency straight from the House; Garfield was the other, and even he was a senator-elect at the time. Surely she has an eye on either 2024 or the vice-presidency rather than seriously thinking she's going to win the Democratic nomination for 2020.
*Age at the 2020 election, if I'm calculating correctly.
by The Archregimancy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:19 pm
Major-Tom wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:Leaving aside the disagreements - and the slightly heated thread rhetoric - over her actual politics, I don't for a second think that Tulsi Gabbard has the slightest chance of being elected president in 2020.
I just don't think the United States is going to elect a 39-year-old* half-Polynesian vegetarian Hindu woman from American Samoa who represents Hawaii in Congress as its president.
Is that fair? Almost certainly not. Is it realistic? Likely yes.
Even leaving aside all of the other factors, she'd be the youngest person elected to the presidency by a good four years (beating Kennedy; Theodore Roosevelt was a year younger than Kennedy on assuming office, but wasn't elected). She'd also only the be the second person to be elected to to the presidency straight from the House; Garfield was the other, and even he was a senator-elect at the time. Surely she has an eye on either 2024 or the vice-presidency rather than seriously thinking she's going to win the Democratic nomination for 2020.
*Age at the 2020 election, if I'm calculating correctly.
I could see her potentially appealing to a niche group of voters and making it to New Hampshire, before running out of funds and essentially being forced to dropout. Middle America, Establishment Dems & Suburban Dems wouldn't go for her, for better or worse.
by Major-Tom » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:21 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Major-Tom wrote:
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.
Well, in all honesty, I do see her as the closest thing we have to a Nazi in federal office.
And opportunism, granted, I'll give you that to an extent, but I feel like she's flip-flopped too hard and I'm skeptical that she actually believes her more liberal views. In India there's a bitter debate if Modi is dangerous, or possibly a dictator. I'm admittedly mixed but left it in there as a possibility for fairness reasons and caution.
And, while I do agree foreign policy disagreements should be encouraged, I still think the Assad thing fully disqualifies her for the Democrats. I just think she's not caring about human rights, and so I cannot help but see her as dangerous to our ideals.
And I cannot support a flip-flopper who supports a brutal genocidal dictator and has many views that are more republican, to an extent that some of the far-right like her.
I don't mind that they like her, but it's why they do that I have an issue with her, as well as the many other things. If some of the worst of the far-right like you, and many racists, for reasons that are similar to yours, I believe you should reconsider your beliefs and see if you truly are a Democrat. DINO's don't exist mostly, but I do see politicians who are dangerous to the party, mostly when it comes to human rights.
The Anti-Semitism and Assad things are to me a dealbreaker and to me disqualifies her from being a Democrat, not due to ideological differences, but due to concern about discrimination, prejudice, support or neglect of pursuing those who persecute those groups, and lack of human rights concerns.United States of Natan wrote: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.
I'm also part-jewish. Tulsi Gabbard is very worrying.
by Varaskia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:22 pm
by Telconi » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:23 pm
Varaskia wrote:Not very familiar with Gabbard, but I get the impression she's probably a little bit too dovish for the right of the Democratic party to be their first choice, and too suspect in terms of her views on Islam and her friendship with Narendra Modi to gain traction with the bulk of the emergent left. Everybody is put off by the admiration she's garnered among certain right-wing circles, from folk like Steve Bannon. Where's her base really going to come from?
by Ism » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:23 pm
Major-Tom wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:Leaving aside the disagreements - and the slightly heated thread rhetoric - over her actual politics, I don't for a second think that Tulsi Gabbard has the slightest chance of being elected president in 2020.
I just don't think the United States is going to elect a 39-year-old* half-Polynesian vegetarian Hindu woman from American Samoa who represents Hawaii in Congress as its president.
Is that fair? Almost certainly not. Is it realistic? Likely yes.
Even leaving aside all of the other factors, she'd be the youngest person elected to the presidency by a good four years (beating Kennedy; Theodore Roosevelt was a year younger than Kennedy on assuming office, but wasn't elected). She'd also only the be the second person to be elected to to the presidency straight from the House; Garfield was the other, and even he was a senator-elect at the time. Surely she has an eye on either 2024 or the vice-presidency rather than seriously thinking she's going to win the Democratic nomination for 2020.
*Age at the 2020 election, if I'm calculating correctly.
I could see her potentially appealing to a niche group of voters and making it to New Hampshire, before running out of funds and essentially being forced to dropout. Middle America, Establishment Dems & Suburban Dems wouldn't go for her, for better or worse.
by Major-Tom » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:25 pm
Ism wrote:Major-Tom wrote:
I could see her potentially appealing to a niche group of voters and making it to New Hampshire, before running out of funds and essentially being forced to dropout. Middle America, Establishment Dems & Suburban Dems wouldn't go for her, for better or worse.
I thought she was supposed to appeal to Middle America?
by Telconi » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:29 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Ism wrote:
I thought she was supposed to appeal to Middle America?
Perhaps some of her populistic credentials could bolster her in that regard, but the public perception and image she has crafted and would continue to craft during the primaries, would, in my humble opinion, simply not resonate with swing voters and former Trump voters in Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin etc etc.
by Thermodolia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:35 pm
United States of Natan wrote:Thermodolia wrote:So? I’m fine if people don’t personally agree with things but believe that the government shouldn’t interfere. I’m that way with abortion.
No she hasn’t been. She’s only been pro-gay since the mid 2010s.
You aren’t in the center dude.
She makes racist jokes about people and she only changed to pro gay because it was politically expedient to do so.
Ya this Jew isn’t seeing. Maybe you could support your bullshit claim?
She’s not a right wing extremist masquerading as a leftist. She’s just not a super liberal SJW.
Keep your head in the sand all you want. It still won't make you right.
And as a Jew, I know antisemitism when I see it. Tulsi has it in spades.
And I know I'm not in the center. But I also know that I'm not far left. I'm more in between the two; in other words, a Progressive.
by Horatius Cocles » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:57 pm
by Valrifell » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:58 pm
Eternal Lotharia wrote:I find it ironic and glorious that Ojeda is more popular than Castro, and Delaney.
At least from our political community here.
by Telconi » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:59 pm
by Thermodolia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:04 pm
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:04 pm
Valrifell wrote: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.
by Western Vale Confederacy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:05 pm
by Valrifell » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:05 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Valrifell wrote: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.
I've been saying this for a while now. Tbh I think the next year or two are gonna be as bad, if not worse, for the Dems than 2015/16 was for the GOP.
by Valrifell » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:06 pm
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:That's a lotta votes for Trump, not going to lie...
by Western Vale Confederacy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:09 pm
Valrifell wrote:Western Vale Confederacy wrote:That's a lotta votes for Trump, not going to lie...
It looks larger than it actually is because the Democratic option is split four other ways. The more candidates that jump in, the worse it will look, but keep in mind that 61% of posters don't want the Donald.
by Valrifell » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:11 pm
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Valrifell wrote:
It looks larger than it actually is because the Democratic option is split four other ways. The more candidates that jump in, the worse it will look, but keep in mind that 61% of posters don't want the Donald.
And that's on a forum with a substantial lean towards the left (and to an extent Democrats) though.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bira Atty, Corporate Collective Salvation, Dimetrodon Empire, Durius, Fahran, Gorutimania, Hidrandia, Hypron, Ineva, Philjia, Southglory, Squishmellows, The Orson Empire, Tungstan, Umeria, Zurkerx
Advertisement