All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Tazirai]

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post4132463

I saw that. Why not post it with the pictuyre and add her response to it.

Obama Spoke with Modi, but Tulsi doing it is a violation of everything Holy?

The one-sided accusations are terrible in a thread on politics because now it's boiling down to tribalism and Identity politics. Cool, you guys have at it.

So our other leaders can meet with people who are disreputable, but Tulsi can't? Got it. Obama can do it, just not Tulsi? Got it.

DNC Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard: Toppling Secular Dictators Like Hussein, Qaddafi, Assad "Is Counterproductive Because It Directly Helps ISIS & al-Qaeda"

REP. TULSI GABBARD: They said they same thing about Iraq, they said the same thing about Qaddafi in Libya. Look at the state of these countries today. They have been overrun and are filled with chaos. And ISIS and Islamist extremist groups have only grown stronger in these countries and terrorizing the people there...

JAKE TAPPER, CNN: So the world woud be better with Qaddafi and Hussein [still alive]?

GABBARD: ISIS, our enemy, would not be as strong as they are today if those actions were not taken to overthrow those secular dictators

It’s counterproductive because it directly helps ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra, the Islamic extremist groups in Syria whose goal is to overthrow Assad, take over all of Syria, gain control of this whole territory, establish their Islamic caliphate and present a disastrous humanitarian crisis far worse than we’re seeing now. And a greater threat to the world.

[Tami]

So if those people are the nominee, they get a no vote from you?

I'll make that decision post-primary. Seriously, I doubt any of them will be. The last thing Democrats need is a controversial candidate and/or one with baggage. Those three have it in spades.

[Tazirai]

I'm done lol. I can't do it anymore. :P Don't attack Democrats, but it's okay to attack Democrats I disagree with.
We need party unity to beat trump. Just not that particular person I disagree with.

[PaulBullion]

I'll make that decision post-primary. Seriously, I doubt any of them will be. The last thing Democrats need is a controversial candidate and/or one with baggage. Those three have it in spades.

May I ask what your problem with Kirsten Gillibrand is? I remember her having the most reliably anti-Trump voting record. She is kind of the Anti-Tulsi in that way.

[kidfresh512]

I'll make that decision post-primary. Seriously, I doubt any of them will be.

That is the great thing about a large Democratic field. We shouldn't have to settle. The weak candidates should easily get weeded out. I just hope the process isn't toxic but we will see. I think the issue will be if we have another situation where people who call themselves "democrats" get too wrapped up in any one candidate they refuse to support the nominee again. The stakes are TOO HIGH for that. They were too high for that last time. GOP is stuffing our courts with judges who will effect us for the rest of our lives.

And Ginsberg cannot hold on forever there is a massive massive chance that she has to retire after 2020. That is one question every voter should be asking. Can we as a nation afford to let these people have 3 Supreme Court judges? Really? We have seen first hand who they will shove through. The stakes are too high to take your toys and go home because someone isn't as "this or that" yet on a particular position.

The question is are they as bad as trump or another GOP on the position? Then get on board and keep it moving or you may as well vote GOP and give up the "lip service" to whatever it is you profess

[Tami]

May I ask what your problem with Kirsten Gillibrand is? I remember her having the most reliably anti-Trump voting record. She is kind of the Anti-Tulsi in that way.

I don't like her attitude, or the way she railroaded Al Fraken out of office before he could get a fair investigation. A lot of Democrats have strong Anti-Trump records, but some of the things she has said in the past worry me. Also her history, her relationship with the NRA, has me wary of her.

[PaulBullion]

I don't like her attitude, or the way she railroaded Al Fraken out of office before he could get a fair investigation. A lot of Democrats have strong Anti-Trump records, but some of the things she has said in the past worry me. Also her history, her relationship with the NRA, has me wary of her.

Fair enough.

[PaulBullion]

That is the great thing about a large Democratic field. We shouldn't have to settle.

Democratic voters cover a much wider political spectrum than Republicans, which means that, yes, some people will have to settle.

[Tami]

Democratic voters cover a much wider political spectrum than Republicans, which means that, yes, some people will have to settle.

Ideally the number of people who settle wil be as small as possible. The best candidate will have the widest appeal and broadest support. Only time will tell if there one who can do that.

[kidfresh512]

Democratic voters cover a much wider political spectrum than Republicans, which means that, yes, some people will have to settle.

Technically sure if you want to call it that. But that goes to my point of what do you stand for. If you really think trump or the GOP is better than a Democratic candidate then you may as well vote GOP. It is that simple. Staying home is what let trump in this time.

Is a democrat better for Social issues, the environment, government regulations, appointing judges than trump will be? We have seen how he will be. The choice is simple. You cant call yourself progressive imo if you allow him to have another 4 years.

And everyone that doesn't vote out of protest is complicit in all of it

[Mister Mets]

An interesting point on Gabbard. The Democratic presidential primary field is the first with multiple women among the major (defined to differentiate a member of Congress from the dozens of nobodies who get on the ballot somewhere) contenders, with Warren and Gabbard having announced runs/ exploratory committees. More women will join in the future, but this is a good milestone.

[aja_christopher]

Huffpo smeared Sanders and still is smearing Sanders. Let's not play the one sided thing. Huffpo often sided with Hillary, since she shared many of the values of Arianna Huffington.

I witnessed the whole thing firsthand so this is something I know for a fact since I saw the problems it would eventually cause down the line: Huffington Post and Salon repeatedly attacked Hillary as being "corporate" and "centrist" while at first pushing for Warren and later Sanders to be the official nominee of the Democratic party.

When it became clear that Warren wouldn't run and (later) that Sanders couldn't win, they suddenly started to write unbiased -- and finally supportive -- articles about her, but by then it was too late as most of the damage had been done. From that point on she was the "corporate" Democrat who wasn't "likable" enough to vote for because of "emails" -- they ultimately tried to push her as the Democratic nominee but it rang hollow in the wake of all the attacks they had made on her at the beginning of her campaign.

Here's a link to the Sanders' stories on Huffpost: the vast majority of them are either neutral or positive, save for the most recent articles about sexual harassment during the 2016 campaign.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/bernie-sanders
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b07112b6472f0e
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0985224db5997

That said, if you want to attack other "Democrats" because you feel that they don't deserve your support, that's your right, but let's not make the claim that the "media" is the problem when many outlets on the "left" were pushing Sanders as the nominee because he was a more "progressive" choice than Hillary Clinton right up to the point when it became clear that the voters preferred Hillary and Sanders had no chance to win the primary, nor that this is a "one-sided" argument when you keep repeatedly attacking "corporate" Democrats like Beto and Kamala (and Hillary) in your posts.

Saying you don't support individual candidates is one thing -- repeatedly attacking the Democratic party as a whole (and the media as well under false pretense) is another entirely, and is a large part of the reason so many people have a problem with Sanders and Sanders's supporters in general. You certainly have every right (like Sanders) to attack "Democrats" as not being progressive enough, but you shouldn't be surprised when others return the favor regarding your candidates of choice, especially when said criticisms are often warranted.

Personally, I think the entire "progressive" vs "corporate" argument is self-defeating at this point, especially given the outcome of the last presidential election, but if you think doing the same thing again will net you different results then I doubt anyone will be able to tell you otherwise.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Remember the sexist Bernie Bros attack. Kinda weird how all those "bros" are down with Warren and AOC

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

An interesting point on Gabbard. The Democratic presidential primary field is the first with multiple women among the major (defined to differentiate a member of Congress from the dozens of nobodies who get on the ballot somewhere) contenders, with Warren and Gabbard having announced runs/ exploratory committees. More women will join in the future, but this is a good milestone.

It's interesting but Gabbard has no real prospects of winning. Imo the most likely are either Warren, Biden, or Harris. Warren touches the sentiments of the progressives while not scaring off the establishment, Biden can tap into the Obama coalition, and Harris has all the big money donors and the establishment backing her. Sanders would probably be on the next tier, but I think too many establishment types just see him and have bad blood over 2016. Booker and Gillibrand probably have next to no shot. Beto is way too young and he's going to have issues outside of Texas if he actually runs. Bloomberg thinks he has a shot but nobody really is going to vote for a curmudeonly old billionaire. Julian Castro is just not a candidate for this era and he'll be knocked out right away.

[aja_christopher]

Remember the sexist Bernie Bros attack. Kinda weird how all those "bros" are down with Warren and AOC

Not all "Bernie Bros" are the same -- most rational people understand that.

But enough are problematic to the point where it's not a bad thing to point out said "problems" so the "left" can deal with them and unify going forward.

The sexual harassment issue for example doesn't mean that all Sanders supporters are sexist, but it does indicate that there is a problem within said "group" that needs to be addressed directly, and to his credit Sanders recognizes this as well.