Democratic Candidates for 2020

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bowser, May 16, 2019.

  1. anticorncob28 Registered Member

    I want Tulsi Gabbard. She is the only candidate running (as far as I know) that did not push Russiagate and she is excellent on foreign policy. And for some reason, Republicans don't have much of a hate bone for her.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You can't be excellent on foreign policy and not "push Russiagate", both.
    That corruption of US foreign policy has to be prosecuted, by anyone hoping to be "excellent on foreign policy". It's a gut check.
    Almost as good as Warren on bottom line policy (if not reasoning - he's a techie) and we don't lose a Senator.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. anticorncob28 Registered Member

    What? Tulsi recognizes the dangerous tensions escalating between Russia and the U.S. over the past six years. She never believed in Trump being a puppet of Russia. Maybe my idea of excellent foreign policy is different from yours.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    bone/boner = penis
    hate = rape ?

    = rape ... hate
    = rape ?

    American culture language of sexual abuse normalisation is quite odd.

    english language "bum bag"
    american language "bum" is an insult not a part of the anatomy...
    english language fanny = vagina/female genitalia
    fanny-pack in english language is quite rude and vulgar language.

    give it a bone is australian slang for make it quiet or give it more attention or "shut the Fuck up".
    english language dog bone is getting a reward for something
    the dog gets the bone in english language means the good person gets the reward or you have got the correct answer.

    american language still contains normalised sexual abuse terms of patriarchal chauvinism.
    the grabbing the dick while being aggressive toward people in music videos and such like is rape normalisation behaviour.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Your idea of "Russiagate" is different from mine.
    Meanwhile, Tulsi's apparent vulnerability to the Republican media feed counts against her imho.

    The prosecution of the Trump family for their various crimes and abuses of office, especially as they affected US foreign policy, is a gut check. All candidates have to clear that bar.

    And comprehension of the Republican Party - its nature, behavior, agenda, history, voting base, and prospects - is a political acumen check. All candidates have to clear that bar as well.
  9. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    she seems very independent
    thats a good thing
    keeping in mind Hawaii has a massive issue of lack of funding for poor homelessness and supply of basic food and shelter for its lowest on the social ladder.
    they have a big complex issue with native indigenous people and low income support, basic food and shelter and health care...
    the ever increasing lack of land for habitation, the inference of the right leaning privatisation of Hawaii
    Hawaii probably needs to stop allowing more than roughly current population to move into the state until people leave or die.
    that way they can invest in their massive poverty issue to balance the culture and economy.
    but that is not something land owners or land sales agents want to hear or support.

    i would be very interested to hear her discuss in length with someone like Oprah or Ellen about her ideas and different opinions around marriage equality.

    it is such an un-sexy issue
    Population: 1.42 million (2018)
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  10. anticorncob28 Registered Member

    The "bone" part of the metaphor refers to actual bones in your body, not an erection.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    She has been taken in by the Republican media feed on a couple of issues (such as its support of Trump's "dialogue" with North Korea, or its attempted trivialization of Trump's Russian dealings) and seems a bit unwary of the nature of the Republican Party in general - or authoritarians in general, come to recall. She reacts as an authoritarian, often - language, "banning" things, etc. Comes with the territory, of course - who runs for President? - but it rings a bell.

    She has little or no executive experience, is from a "small" place, and is too young to have solid political experience or personal leverage.

    She is already a strong Democrat in Congress, and the legislative side of things is her strength of experience - that might be a loss, although her seat seems safe enough.

    That given, she talks a very good game for me - top five of the Dem field, easily. I'd nominate her over Sanders, say, in a crunch, and by a long way over Biden or Booker. I think she'd pick up better cabinet and staff, to cover her deficits in experience.
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    the cold hard truth of dystopian collectives is the nature of panhandling to the conservatives
    why would they choose left from right when the middle is sold soo well ?
    dystopian cultural dialectic social conformity defines normative social extremity of conservatist ideological self ideation.

    why you might ask
    probably mostly because it is a fear response

    is she paying lip service to the moderate leftist conservatist christian vote ?
    possibly a middle of the road semi secular conservative running on a democrat ticket as a center left
    Hawaii is a working island
    you need to identify with the service personal and the working class or your in the wrong place.
    she seems to tick those boxes.
    the christian part of the military are probably a recognised voter base.

    i am not a fan of big corporate personalaties
    they define themselves as narcissistic as a form of modeling which tends to set the air of the administrational environment.
    however, the american media machine eats anything vaguely humane
    its a bit of a damned if you do/dont issue
  13. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Does she though? Putin needs to know his actions are dangerous. She's the darling of RT, I'm glad to see she's not even in the top 10.
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's going to be a mistake to evaluate any Dem by their attraction to various wingnut factions. Those people are no better informed about Dems than they are about Trump, or anything else.

    Andrew Yang, for example, has a significant cheering section on 4chan - the only visible explanation is that he's male and a techno nerd himself. None of his policies or positions is remotely compatible with those fruitcakes.

    I can see Gabbard picking up some such following, especially on RT. Syria is a very big deal to them, the various lies and so forth the US - including, significantly, the Democratic Obama administration - told to justify American intervention in Syria are fresh and influential, and Gabbard's take is appropriately defiant of them (however inadequately wary of the authoritarian Putin, Trump, and Assad), consistently anti-war, and better informed than most (she was stationed nearby, in a hospital setting where information is better available than military average). That and her blind spot toward Trump's Russian dealings - again partly explained by her reaction against the Clinton crowd and leadership in the Dem Party, as well as her authoritarian lean - recommend her to RT.

    That shouldn't - imho - tank her to the Dem voter generally. She has to come around on the Republican Party and Putin, especially Trump and his dealings, to get my vote - but unusually enough it looks like she can, like she can change as she learns.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    She sounds like a peach..
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Fair description - some bs vocabulary (Nothing Gabbard has done is "Trumplike")
    So where does that leave you?

    Would you take Biden over her? Booker? O'Rourke?
    Anybody her age who wants to be on the DCCC?
    Are there seven Dem candidates you would have higher hopes for as President? ( Yang doesn't count until he pulls his head out of the cloud.)

    The Democratic Party field doesn't have that many possibilities for the left libertarian - the plurality of the voting base available to Dems, maybe a majority. We're going to have to compromise, and gamble. For starters, I'll take somebody who thinks that too much of the chemical weapons case against Assad looks like agitprop set up to justify regime change, which they oppose - it does, and they should - and resigns from the DCCC because it is feckless - it is, and they should. (On the blog website "Idle Words" you can find an essay by a professional cybersecurity expert on the lessons learned in consulting with 40+ Democratic candidate campaigns in 2018 - here's one of them:
    It's easy to see how someone could be temporarily taken in by Steve Bannon, after dealing with stuff like that for months with an elected office at stake.)

    The future of US politics is going to include people whose age 15 to age 25 political opinions are on public record. Anything Gabbard said or did prior to age 26 I'm going to ignore.

    As far as being too cozy with Republicans and naive on the pitch - she is. She also possibly has a soft spot for authoritarians, especially very intelligent ones. But: not (so far) for bankers, or CEOs, or the DCCC, or most of the standard authoritarian agenda despite her personal lean. She didn't fall for the Blue Dog pitch, for example.

    So she learns, see?

    She still has a couple of months to come around on Russiagate, to show that she knows who the Republicans are and what running and then governing against that horrowshow will entail - if she lands solidly for impeachment of Trump in the next couple of months, "evolves" to that extent, she clears that bar. If she doesn't, I drop her into the pack. I'm holding the slot open.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    But she does believe he used chemical weapons against his own people.

    At a CNN town hall in Austin on Sunday, Gabbard refused to characterize Assad as a “war criminal,” and Colbert asked directly if she believes he used chemical weapons against his own people. “Do you believe he gassed his own people or committed atrocities against his own people?” he asked.

    “Yes, reports have shown that's a fact,” Gabbard admitted, denying that she has ever suggested otherwise and going on to stress that “reports have shown chemical weapons attacks have been used by both the Syrian government as well as by the terrorist groups who are fighting in Syria.”

    I guess it comes down to a matter of decency and human rights. But then again, I guess that the US left that behind a long time ago.

    Assad is a dictator and a war criminal. Her refusal to call him one is going to haunt her as it should.

    Do you think Bannon, Duke and co now hate her?

    Perhaps she is the Democrat Republicans wish to have?


    Well of course.

    Dictators who gas their own civilians are much less dangerous and deserve less criticism than bankers, CEO's or the DCCC.

    Mmm hmmm..
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Assad is a dictator who committed atrocities against his own people - the citizens of Syria.

    The apparent attempts to justify military intervention in Syria by exaggerating, staging, and otherwise misrepresenting Assad's known atrocities were not such wonderful behaviors either - and the military intervention they justified also involved atrocities against Syrian citizens, committed by allies of the US.
    Was anyone talking about "deserving criticism"?

    Dictators who gas, incinerate, napalm, bombard, torture, murder, and otherwise oppress civilians are allied with the US government about as often as not. The US government - including the Democratic Party "leadership" - has a track record of lying about such things, in both directions: false accusation, and false exculpation. I regard such lying as more dangerous to the US than the dictators themselves - when employed to justify war, as in Iraq, considerably more dangerous. When employed by bankers and CEOs to justify war in their interests, I want the President to be cautious, wary, skeptical, and not a pushover or complicit ally of Clinton's or Biden's stripe.
    It comes down to sound judgment and accurate assessment - which the US libertarian left has apparently cornered the market on.
    Who cares what Trump voters say they think?
  19. Bells Staff Member

    So it makes it more palatable? Is it only worthy of intervention if he gases non-Syrians?

    Do you need a bigger bucket for all that water you are carrying? I mean, poor Assad, so misunderstood. What part of gasing his own people did you feel was exaggerated? Or even staged?

    My comment was pretty clear. What part of it did you not understand, exactly?

    Yep. Which is why you are crossing limbs for Tulsi. She just need to learn to not defend dictators.. And I guess her pull back to the days you wish to simply pretend did not happen should also be ignored, because you know, she is evolving. What is interesting is that this evolution really started to take hold when she went into politics.

    She does.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    None that I know of. Did I suggest otherwise?
    You are going spla, here. Maybe read the posts, and belay the attempts at imputation?
    Wtf? I'm evaluating a field of candidates - unless the magical third Party of fantasy appears, these are going to be my choices.
    To repeat: imho she is too cozy with Reps, too "bipartisan" and "bothsides", too willing to cut them slack and attempt appeasement,
    apparently either a side effect of her otherwise admirable resistance to Dem establishment bs, a hangover from her military/childhood upbringing, or a disqualifying character flaw - she has a couple of months to figure it out, and if she doesn't clear that bar she drops. Something wrong with that?
    I thought the US media headlines, videos, and reported events leading to the push for military intervention looked dubious and contrived - in the same way the agitprop used to push the Iraq War, the Libyan intervention, various attempts at Iranian regime change, and so forth, now Venezuela, looked and were found to be setups and agitprop.
    That's not a defense of Assad, whose bad character and horrible behaviors - in my opinion - I have posted all over this forum. It's a recognition of the US warmongering and regime change efforts - efforts that have been focused on the oil and gas pipeline routes of the Middle East and Central Asia for decades now, with a track record that should have landed the perps in the Hague rather than setting standards for assessment of US politicians.

    Seeing through them, in defiance of media and criticism, is one of the low bars a Dem Presidential candidate has to clear. A lot of them haven't.
    Sounds good - new information, new experience, new opinions. Exactly what should happen - and continue to happen.

    If it doesn't - the shortlist shrinks by one.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Outside of Iraq, Afghanistan which were based on terrible reasons and frankly, should never have been invaded.. Syria is the one country that should have had intervention from the international community.

    Would she have figured it out? Or would it simply be a matter of appeasement?

    I think your candidates are too numerous and all of them leave a hell of a lot to be desired.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Outside of the dead elephant, the room is empty.
    Too late, and frankly irrelevant. Warmongering is warmongering, and the next Dem President has to see it and know it.
    Gabbard has a leg up on the field, in that respect.
    The price for the failure of the Democratic Party to hold to its basic principles in the face of Reagan is still being paid. They got rolled, and the missing ten Governor Warrens will be a generation filling in.
    And yet there will be an election.
    Appeasement works the other way, only. She would be abandoning appeasement.
    Both sides is bullshit.
  23. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    I believe that too. Our effort to support the opposition failed because they were just as bad as the alternative. It was untenable. We would have had to invade, and no one wanted to.

Share This Page