|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 23, 2017 0:08:38 GMT
i wouldn't vote for anyone who isn't a leftist and that's why you're an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Nov 23, 2017 18:12:24 GMT
No. I think she's the only contender who would really be a non-starter for me if she got the nomination (which, given her position on everything from foreign military action to gay marriage to being cozy with crazy demogogic world leaders — she won't). I thought she supported gay marriage, I know her father doesn't but that shouldn't mean she doesn't. Are you a hawk on foreign policy? Many people that like Tulsi like that she's not that interventionist. Maybe I'm missing something...
|
|
vircar2
New Member
Posts: 34
Likes: 13
|
Post by vircar2 on Nov 24, 2017 4:29:09 GMT
Definitely not!
|
|
ibad
New Member
Posts: 120
Likes: 39
|
Post by ibad on Nov 24, 2017 14:15:42 GMT
No. I think she's the only contender who would really be a non-starter for me if she got the nomination (which, given her position on everything from foreign military action to gay marriage to being cozy with crazy demogogic world leaders — she won't). I thought she supported gay marriage, I know her father doesn't but that shouldn't mean she doesn't. Are you a hawk on foreign policy? Many people that like Tulsi like that she's not that interventionist. Maybe I'm missing something... One of her biggest criticisms of Obama was that he wasn't "more aggressive" on terrorism and didn't use the words "radical Islamic terrorism." And she's very much on the side of arming and supporting Assad's murderous regime in Syria. As for her views on gay marriage, this from last year: So yeah, I don't think she has a great chance in a Democratic primary contest given the bench that will be available by then.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 1,787
|
Post by dazed on Nov 24, 2017 17:46:51 GMT
I thought she supported gay marriage, I know her father doesn't but that shouldn't mean she doesn't. Are you a hawk on foreign policy? Many people that like Tulsi like that she's not that interventionist. Maybe I'm missing something... One of her biggest criticisms of Obama was that he wasn't "more aggressive" on terrorism and didn't use the words "radical Islamic terrorism." And she's very much on the side of arming and supporting Assad's murderous regime in Syria. As for her views on gay marriage, this from last year: So yeah, I don't think she has a great chance in a Democratic primary contest given the bench that will be available by then. I’m surprised she’d be the only non starter out of the contenders for you since she’s more progressive than a lot of the contenders, such as Biden and Booker. She proposed a bill called ‘Stop Arming Terroists’ which was to stop using tax payer money to give weapons to terroists groups, and rather spend those taxes at home. I think the bill only had 13 supporters too, some of whom were Republicans. The article you linked about Syria and her is completely biased and clearly a smear attack (going after her religion even, calling it an extreme form of Hinduism and compaing it to a cult), which isn’t a surprise with her being an outsider. As for the whole gay marriage thing, I’ve seen her come out and support it (even though she didn’t in the early 2000’ s). So she has flipped flopped on that issue, but correct me if I’m wrong (I may be thinking of a different person), did you vote for Hillary over Bernie in 2016?
|
|
ibad
New Member
Posts: 120
Likes: 39
|
Post by ibad on Nov 24, 2017 21:06:49 GMT
I’m surprised she’d be the only non starter out of the contenders for you since she’s more progressive than a lot of the contenders, such as Biden and Booker. She proposed a bill called ‘Stop Arming Terroists’ which was to stop using tax payer money to give weapons to terroists groups, and rather spend those taxes at home. I think the bill only had 13 supporters too, some of whom were Republicans. The article you linked about Syria and her is completely biased and clearly a smear attack (going after her religion even, calling it an extreme form of Hinduism and compaing it to a cult), which isn’t a surprise with her being an outsider. As for the whole gay marriage thing, I’ve seen her come out and support it (even though she didn’t in the early 2000’ s). So she has flipped flopped on that issue, but correct me if I’m wrong (I may be thinking of a different person), did you vote for Hillary over Bernie in 2016? She's often ranked easily among the least progressive Dems in the Congress, especially compared to her district. And the issue isn't necessarily "changing her mind" on gay marriage — she says she HASN'T changed her personal views on it! Like come on, even as Hillary/Biden/Obama (and back in 2006, Bernie — who argued for civil unions instead of marriage) pretended to be against gay marriage most voters were pretty sure where they personally stood on it...
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 1,787
|
Post by dazed on Nov 25, 2017 1:29:54 GMT
I’m surprised she’d be the only non starter out of the contenders for you since she’s more progressive than a lot of the contenders, such as Biden and Booker. She proposed a bill called ‘Stop Arming Terroists’ which was to stop using tax payer money to give weapons to terroists groups, and rather spend those taxes at home. I think the bill only had 13 supporters too, some of whom were Republicans. The article you linked about Syria and her is completely biased and clearly a smear attack (going after her religion even, calling it an extreme form of Hinduism and compaing it to a cult), which isn’t a surprise with her being an outsider. As for the whole gay marriage thing, I’ve seen her come out and support it (even though she didn’t in the early 2000’ s). So she has flipped flopped on that issue, but correct me if I’m wrong (I may be thinking of a different person), did you vote for Hillary over Bernie in 2016? She's often ranked easily among the least progressive Dems in the Congress, especially compared to her district. And the issue isn't necessarily "changing her mind" on gay marriage — she says she HASN'T changed her personal views on it! Like come on, even as Hillary/Biden/Obama (and back in 2006, Bernie — who argued for civil unions instead of marriage) pretended to be against gay marriage most voters were pretty sure where they personally stood on it... Don’t equate Bernie with corporate democrats in regards to gay marriage. He was in support of gay rights way before it was even beginning to be discussed, as seen here: www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/Also, the only reason why Clinton and those others support gay marriage is because it was starting to become popular amongst the people. I can guarantee you that if running against gay marriage got them elected, they’d be against it. I don’t know enough about Tulsi and her gay rights background, but I know her voting record goes along with supporting it now. So I’d put her on the same page as Clinton and all the others if what you’re saying is true. Tulsi is anti-TPP (Clinton, Biden, and Obama aren’t), she’s pro-environment, she’s for breaking up the banks, she’s for a single payer healthcare system, she’s way less interventionist than the likes of democrats such as Clinton, and she backed Sanders (the progressive candidate) over Clinton (the center-right candidate) unlike majority of the other democrats. She may not be as progressive as Bernie (then again, almost no candidate is in America), but she’s definitely more progressive than the likes of Obama, Biden, and especially Clinton. If you voted for Clinton over Bernie in 2016 but can’t vote for Tulsi because of her gay rights background and her ‘pro interventionism’, then that doesn’t make sense to me.
|
|
ibad
New Member
Posts: 120
Likes: 39
|
Post by ibad on Nov 25, 2017 2:45:45 GMT
She's often ranked easily among the least progressive Dems in the Congress, especially compared to her district. And the issue isn't necessarily "changing her mind" on gay marriage — she says she HASN'T changed her personal views on it! Like come on, even as Hillary/Biden/Obama (and back in 2006, Bernie — who argued for civil unions instead of marriage) pretended to be against gay marriage most voters were pretty sure where they personally stood on it... Don’t equate Bernie with corporate democrats in regards to gay marriage. He was in support of gay rights way before it was even beginning to be discussed, as seen here: www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/Also, the only reason why Clinton and those others support gay marriage is because it was starting to become popular amongst the people. I can guarantee you that if running against gay marriage got them elected, they’d be against it. I don’t know enough about Tulsi and her gay rights background, but I know her voting record goes along with supporting it now. So I’d put her on the same page as Clinton and all the others if what you’re saying is true. Tulsi is anti-TPP (Clinton, Biden, and Obama aren’t), she’s pro-environment, she’s for breaking up the banks, she’s for a single payer healthcare system, she’s way less interventionist than the likes of democrats such as Clinton, and she backed Sanders (the progressive candidate) over Clinton (the center-right candidate) unlike majority of the other democrats. She may not be as progressive as Bernie (then again, almost no candidate is in America), but she’s definitely more progressive than the likes of Obama, Biden, and especially Clinton. If you voted for Clinton over Bernie in 2016 but can’t vote for Tulsi because of her gay rights background and her ‘pro interventionism’, then that doesn’t make sense to me. Lol I'm not going to sit here and argue who was for gay marriage when. Tulsi's own words are clear on that front. Whatever anyone felt in the past about it (and Obama also openly said he endorsed it before he was a Senate candidate....like when Bernie backed off from it in '06), what matters now is moving forward. I've shown you the scorecard of every congressperson's voting record checked against a progressive agenda. Tulsi is FAR from a progressive. Having supported Bernie is NOT, in itself, progressive.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 27, 2017 12:54:43 GMT
She's often ranked easily among the least progressive Dems in the Congress, especially compared to her district. And the issue isn't necessarily "changing her mind" on gay marriage — she says she HASN'T changed her personal views on it! Like come on, even as Hillary/Biden/Obama (and back in 2006, Bernie — who argued for civil unions instead of marriage) pretended to be against gay marriage most voters were pretty sure where they personally stood on it... Don’t equate Bernie with corporate democrats in regards to gay marriage. He was in support of gay rights way before it was even beginning to be discussed, as seen here: www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/Also, the only reason why Clinton and those others support gay marriage is because it was starting to become popular amongst the people. I can guarantee you that if running against gay marriage got them elected, they’d be against it. I don’t know enough about Tulsi and her gay rights background, but I know her voting record goes along with supporting it now. So I’d put her on the same page as Clinton and all the others if what you’re saying is true. Tulsi is anti-TPP (Clinton, Biden, and Obama aren’t), she’s pro-environment, she’s for breaking up the banks, she’s for a single payer healthcare system, she’s way less interventionist than the likes of democrats such as Clinton, and she backed Sanders (the progressive candidate) over Clinton (the center-right candidate) unlike majority of the other democrats. She may not be as progressive as Bernie (then again, almost no candidate is in America), but she’s definitely more progressive than the likes of Obama, Biden, and especially Clinton. If you voted for Clinton over Bernie in 2016 but can’t vote for Tulsi because of her gay rights background and her ‘pro interventionism’, then that doesn’t make sense to me. Can so called "progressives" like you two just admit that it's socialism and there's no progress in any of it?
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 1,787
|
Post by dazed on Nov 27, 2017 15:52:15 GMT
Don’t equate Bernie with corporate democrats in regards to gay marriage. He was in support of gay rights way before it was even beginning to be discussed, as seen here: www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/Also, the only reason why Clinton and those others support gay marriage is because it was starting to become popular amongst the people. I can guarantee you that if running against gay marriage got them elected, they’d be against it. I don’t know enough about Tulsi and her gay rights background, but I know her voting record goes along with supporting it now. So I’d put her on the same page as Clinton and all the others if what you’re saying is true. Tulsi is anti-TPP (Clinton, Biden, and Obama aren’t), she’s pro-environment, she’s for breaking up the banks, she’s for a single payer healthcare system, she’s way less interventionist than the likes of democrats such as Clinton, and she backed Sanders (the progressive candidate) over Clinton (the center-right candidate) unlike majority of the other democrats. She may not be as progressive as Bernie (then again, almost no candidate is in America), but she’s definitely more progressive than the likes of Obama, Biden, and especially Clinton. If you voted for Clinton over Bernie in 2016 but can’t vote for Tulsi because of her gay rights background and her ‘pro interventionism’, then that doesn’t make sense to me. Can so called "progressives" like you two just admit that it's socialism and there's no progress in any of it? Well I live in Canada, so I’m a centrist here. Maybe center-left. On the American spectrum, I’d be a progressive. Also, there’s a difference between social democracy and socialism. There’s even a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism (which is more to the left). Bernie for an example, is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist when you go issue by issue.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 27, 2017 16:33:52 GMT
Can so called "progressives" like you two just admit that it's socialism and there's no progress in any of it? Well I live in Canada, so I’m a centrist here. Maybe center-left. On the American spectrum, I’d be a progressive. Also, there’s a difference between social democracy and socialism. There’s even a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism (which is more to the left). Bernie for an example, is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist when you go issue by issue. There's no fucking difference between socialism and democratic socialism because the idea of socialism is that everyone has a say. So to put 'democratic' in front of it is completely superfluous. So by your definition Sanders wouldn't even be a democratic socialist even if he says so. I think he really is a socialist but won't admit to all his beliefs because he knows they won't go down well in the US. Someone like Jeremy Corbyn would never stand a chance in the US.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 1,787
|
Post by dazed on Nov 27, 2017 16:52:16 GMT
Well I live in Canada, so I’m a centrist here. Maybe center-left. On the American spectrum, I’d be a progressive. Also, there’s a difference between social democracy and socialism. There’s even a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism (which is more to the left). Bernie for an example, is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist when you go issue by issue. There's no fucking difference between socialism and democratic socialism because the idea of socialism is that everyone has a say. So to put 'democratic' in front of it is completely superfluous. So by your definition Sanders wouldn't even be a democratic socialist even if he says so. I think he really is a socialist but won't admit to all his beliefs because he knows they won't go down well in the US. Someone like Jeremy Corbyn would never stand a chance in the US. Although Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, in reality he’s a social democrat. If you look at all of the policies he wants to implement, you’ll understand that. They’re both used interchangeably by people, and mistakenly so (I use to do it). He looks at Canada and the Nordic countries and wants America to have a similar system as those counties. You thinking deep down he’s a socialist through and through is like people thinking Trump is actually a fascist that’ll lock up reporters and people that have abortions. It’s just silly.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 27, 2017 17:12:04 GMT
There's no fucking difference between socialism and democratic socialism because the idea of socialism is that everyone has a say. So to put 'democratic' in front of it is completely superfluous. So by your definition Sanders wouldn't even be a democratic socialist even if he says so. I think he really is a socialist but won't admit to all his beliefs because he knows they won't go down well in the US. Someone like Jeremy Corbyn would never stand a chance in the US. Although Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, in reality he’s a social democrat. If you look at all of the policies he wants to implement, you’ll understand that. They’re both used interchangeably by people, and mistakenly so (I use to do it). He looks at Canada and the Nordic countries and wants America to have a similar system as those counties. You thinking deep down he’s a socialist through and through is like people thinking Trump is actually a fascist that’ll lock up reporters and people that have abortions. It’s just silly. No you misunderstand me. I know what Sanders says isn't socialism, it's more akin to the likes of Sweden which is a mixed economy. I just think deep down Sanders thinks real socialism is better than capitalism. As for Trump, he has no real ideology. He's just a populist and is neither left nor right. The only thing that politically drives him is trade and he's been talking about that since the 80's and he takes a left wing position on that.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 1,787
|
Post by dazed on Nov 27, 2017 17:28:11 GMT
Although Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, in reality he’s a social democrat. If you look at all of the policies he wants to implement, you’ll understand that. They’re both used interchangeably by people, and mistakenly so (I use to do it). He looks at Canada and the Nordic countries and wants America to have a similar system as those counties. You thinking deep down he’s a socialist through and through is like people thinking Trump is actually a fascist that’ll lock up reporters and people that have abortions. It’s just silly. No you misunderstand me. I know what Sanders says isn't socialism, it's more akin to the likes of Sweden which is a mixed economy. I just think deep down Sanders thinks real socialism is better than capitalism. As for Trump, he has no real ideology. He's just a populist and is neither left nor right. The only thing that politically drives him is trade and he's been talking about that since the 80's and he takes a left wing position on that. No I know. I just think you’re wrong in thinking that deep down Sanders wants real socialism rather than capitalism though. I would believe that if his policies were similar to that of a democractic socialist (although he calls himself that, everything he’s said and done leads to the idea of him being a social democrat). Him calling himself a democractic socialist in the election was pretty much political suicide since I remember a poll back then that had only 25% of people or so voting for a socialist. So him coming out and saying that would lead me to believe that he wouldn’t have an issue stating at least some policies that align with democractic socialism if he truly believed in it. I see so many people mix up the two terms, and I think he’s one of them. It makes me a little angry when he does honestly. As for Trump, yeah. He’s pretty much just an establishment bitch now that makes some wild remarks here and there. I never believed he was a ‘fascist dictator’ like a lot of people thought. Which was just plain dumb in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 27, 2017 17:54:07 GMT
No you misunderstand me. I know what Sanders says isn't socialism, it's more akin to the likes of Sweden which is a mixed economy. I just think deep down Sanders thinks real socialism is better than capitalism. As for Trump, he has no real ideology. He's just a populist and is neither left nor right. The only thing that politically drives him is trade and he's been talking about that since the 80's and he takes a left wing position on that. No I know. I just think you’re wrong in thinking that deep down Sanders wants real socialism rather than capitalism though. I would believe that if his policies were similar to that of a democractic socialist (although he calls himself that, everything he’s said and done leads to the idea of him being a social democrat). Him calling himself a democractic socialist in the election was pretty much political suicide since I remember a poll back then that had only 25% of people or so voting for a socialist. So him coming out and saying that would lead me to believe that he wouldn’t have an issue stating at least some policies that align with democractic socialism if he truly believed in it. I see so many people mix up the two terms, and I think he’s one of them. It makes me a little angry when he does honestly. As for Trump, yeah. He’s pretty much just an establishment bitch now that makes some wild remarks here and there. I never believed he was a ‘fascist dictator’ like a lot of people thought. Which was just plain dumb in my opinion. Do you think Sanders actually says everything that he believes. That old video of him saying that bread lines were a good thing is a big red flag for me and I know he wouldn't dare say it again now because it's career suicide. I think he's very similar to Corbyn and he outright wants to Nationalize a lot of industries in the UK.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 1,787
|
Post by dazed on Nov 27, 2017 18:46:02 GMT
No I know. I just think you’re wrong in thinking that deep down Sanders wants real socialism rather than capitalism though. I would believe that if his policies were similar to that of a democractic socialist (although he calls himself that, everything he’s said and done leads to the idea of him being a social democrat). Him calling himself a democractic socialist in the election was pretty much political suicide since I remember a poll back then that had only 25% of people or so voting for a socialist. So him coming out and saying that would lead me to believe that he wouldn’t have an issue stating at least some policies that align with democractic socialism if he truly believed in it. I see so many people mix up the two terms, and I think he’s one of them. It makes me a little angry when he does honestly. As for Trump, yeah. He’s pretty much just an establishment bitch now that makes some wild remarks here and there. I never believed he was a ‘fascist dictator’ like a lot of people thought. Which was just plain dumb in my opinion. Do you think Sanders actually says everything that he believes. That old video of him saying that bread lines were a good thing is a big red flag for me and I know he wouldn't dare say it again now because it's career suicide. I think he's very similar to Corbyn and he outright wants to Nationalize a lot of industries in the UK. He’s one of the most honest politicians I’ve seen, yes. Even his opposition that’s had to deal with him for years and disagree with almost everything he says say the same thing. As for the breadlines video, I would like for him to comment on it. 12 seconds isn’t enough for me to garner an opinion on it. If he truly believes breadlines are good for a country, than I’d find it really hard to support him. His voting record, policies, and statements though lead me to believe that he’s in support for a well-regulated capitalism system where somethings work better nationalized than others. Examples being healthcare and education. And then somethings working better while privatized. Examples being cars and clothes. As for comparing him to Jeremy Corbyn, I think Corbyn is further left than Sanders on the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 27, 2017 19:49:51 GMT
Do you think Sanders actually says everything that he believes. That old video of him saying that bread lines were a good thing is a big red flag for me and I know he wouldn't dare say it again now because it's career suicide. I think he's very similar to Corbyn and he outright wants to Nationalize a lot of industries in the UK. He’s one of the most honest politicians I’ve seen, yes. Even his opposition that’s had to deal with him for years and disagree with almost everything he says say the same thing. As for the breadlines video, I would like for him to comment on it. 12 seconds isn’t enough for me to garner an opinion on it. If he truly believes breadlines are good for a country, than I’d find it really hard to support him. His voting record, policies, and statements though lead me to believe that he’s in support for a well-regulated capitalism system where somethings work better nationalized than others. Examples being healthcare and education. And then somethings working better while privatized. Examples being cars and clothes. As for comparing him to Jeremy Corbyn, I think Corbyn is further left than Sanders on the spectrum. You know how I know he's full of shit like the rest of the Democrats in office. If he was then he would outright say he's against the 2nd Amendment but if he said that then he would be run out of politics because even Democrat voters are gun owners. Even those scumbag TYT clowns won't say they're against the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 1,787
|
Post by dazed on Nov 27, 2017 20:22:05 GMT
He’s one of the most honest politicians I’ve seen, yes. Even his opposition that’s had to deal with him for years and disagree with almost everything he says say the same thing. As for the breadlines video, I would like for him to comment on it. 12 seconds isn’t enough for me to garner an opinion on it. If he truly believes breadlines are good for a country, than I’d find it really hard to support him. His voting record, policies, and statements though lead me to believe that he’s in support for a well-regulated capitalism system where somethings work better nationalized than others. Examples being healthcare and education. And then somethings working better while privatized. Examples being cars and clothes. As for comparing him to Jeremy Corbyn, I think Corbyn is further left than Sanders on the spectrum. You know how I know he's full of shit like the rest of the Democrats in office. If he was then he would outright say he's against the 2nd Amendment but if he said that then he would be run out of politics because even Democrat voters are gun owners. Even those scumbag TYT clowns won't say they're against the 2nd Amendment. Bernie seems to be a bit of a moderate on gun control though. I remember him getting a lot of shit by progressives during the debate with Clinton (who seems to be further left than him on gun control) by voting to give gun makers and sellers immunity from liability and then doubling down on that vote during the debate. I believe he goes as far to say that gun control is a state issue, but some aspects where federal policies should intervene, such as background checks. As for TYT, I rarely ever watch their videos so I can’t comment. I’m not a fan of Cenk and them. I watch Secular Talk though (who is apart of TYT, but disagrees with them on quite a few issues and who I think has a less biased point of view).
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Nov 27, 2017 21:17:55 GMT
You know how I know he's full of shit like the rest of the Democrats in office. If he was then he would outright say he's against the 2nd Amendment but if he said that then he would be run out of politics because even Democrat voters are gun owners. Even those scumbag TYT clowns won't say they're against the 2nd Amendment. Bernie seems to be a bit of a moderate on gun control though. I remember him getting a lot of shit by progressives during the debate with Clinton (who seems to be further left than him on gun control) by voting to give gun makers and sellers immunity from liability and then doubling down on that vote during the debate. I believe he goes as far to say that gun control is a state issue, but some aspects where federal policies should intervene, such as background checks. As for TYT, I rarely ever watch their videos so I can’t comment. I’m not a fan of Cenk and them. I watch Secular Talk though (who is apart of TYT, but disagrees with them on quite a few issues and who I think has a less biased point of view). Just because he won't vote on a ridiculous law like that doesn't mean he wouldn't get rid of the 2nd Amendment if he was dictator.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 1,787
|
Post by dazed on Nov 27, 2017 22:07:02 GMT
Bernie seems to be a bit of a moderate on gun control though. I remember him getting a lot of shit by progressives during the debate with Clinton (who seems to be further left than him on gun control) by voting to give gun makers and sellers immunity from liability and then doubling down on that vote during the debate. I believe he goes as far to say that gun control is a state issue, but some aspects where federal policies should intervene, such as background checks. As for TYT, I rarely ever watch their videos so I can’t comment. I’m not a fan of Cenk and them. I watch Secular Talk though (who is apart of TYT, but disagrees with them on quite a few issues and who I think has a less biased point of view). Just because he won't vote on a ridiculous law like that doesn't mean he wouldn't get rid of the 2nd Amendment if he was dictator. Well there’s also other examples such as him voting to allow firearms on Amtrack and voting against the Brady Bill multiple times, which again, makes the case of him being moderate on the issue. If he truly was for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, he’d have no reason to vote the way that he did on those bills.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Nov 28, 2017 1:57:28 GMT
You know how I know he's full of shit like the rest of the Democrats in office. If he was then he would outright say he's against the 2nd Amendment but if he said that then he would be run out of politics because even Democrat voters are gun owners. Even those scumbag TYT clowns won't say they're against the 2nd Amendment. I watch Secular Talk though (who is apart of TYT, but disagrees with them on quite a few issues and who I think has a less biased point of view). His vids on Alex Jones are hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Dec 4, 2017 22:06:06 GMT
Tulsi Gabbard is a conservative democrat in one of the most liberal states in the country. No I would not vote for her. Her views are "questionable" at best.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Dec 4, 2017 22:22:32 GMT
Tulsi Gabbard is a conservative democrat in one of the most liberal states in the country. No I would not vote for her. Her views are "questionable" at best. So what if it's Gabbard vs Trump? Still not voting for her?
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Dec 5, 2017 7:23:08 GMT
It depends on the choices, but considering what's potentially on offer I think she is in the upper bracket, though I would personally prefer Sanders (and it currently seems as though he will run). There is not enough info on her stances on economics for me to definitely make up my mind by my own standards but by American standards she's a definitive huge step up on almost everything. Personally speaking I think she seems to lack vision but by the standards of American politics you apply for visionary if you don't make stuff worse (I mean honestly, look at the field last election, how many candidates in the primaries were not a step down, I'm leaning towards saying only Sanders, all of the Republicans were lunatics*, Hillary was a slightly worse status quo and O'Malley seemed to lack a grasp of macrovision).
I'll vote for a Sanders/Gabbard ticket among the 3 million illegals, ok?
*A short commentary on the lunacy in the republican primaries: It went from conventional lunacy ala Kasich, Rubio & Jeb to unconventional but also comparatively moderate (to the rest of the field) lunacy ala Trump, to the horrendously awful ala Christie to the seriously deranged ala Carson & Fiorina to probably worse than Hitler (you ought to know who I'm talking about here). The only even remotely close to sane would be Paul but his opposition to intervention and his socially liberal policies (like ending the war on drugs) can't in any way make up for his horseshit economics. Taking the field of players in account, I'm relatively glad that Trump won the primary (as I said, the only significant step up was Paul, most would be effectively worse) but I would have preffered Hillary in the general. If you can vote both in the Democratic & Republican primaries (and I gather you can where they are open?), I would have went to the Republican primaries and voted Trump but if you couldn't I would have only voted Sanders in the Democratic primaries for sure; and don't play the crappy Sanders supporters like Trump card. I preffered Hillary over him and you all know that more Obama voters than Sanders supporters voted Trump.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Dec 5, 2017 7:49:34 GMT
An expansion on my comparative gripes with Gabbard: Maybe the best way to express myself about Gabbard, is that she to me seems to lack the intellectual capacities I would demand of a president but again with the field of choices that you will have, this is an inconsequential metric (because by that metric noone who will run is sufficient). You haven't had a guy like Jefferson since... well, Jefferson. Many of the founding fathers were intellectuals... but since then... eh... Lincoln and Wilson (maybe somewhere there is an argument for Carter, I have a lot of respect for him) stand out but otherwise the best you had were usually skilled administators like Roosevelt or LBJ and often that was just what was required since some of them were great listeners and great at bringing people together while still being able to take bold stances - but still, I think ideally intellectualislm should have a higher standing (but of course combined with other people who are great administratives) and by that I don't mean elitism, I'll also gladly take it as intellectual populism. And atn , dazed If Booker runs, I would pray to get Hillary instead. Booker vs. Trump is where I would seriously contemplate to abstain (that is to write someone in). That would be an entirely new level. I mean, I do think one could swallow Hillary, for all the awful that she was, I think there is at least somewhere the chance that she means well on a relatable level (I mean she initiated some good stuff when she was 1st lady), voting for someone like Booker would make me feel dirty for the rest of my life, even if I would logically conclude that it would be the right choice (which I don't at all think is a given), I don't know if I could physically do that. Voting Trump also seems like a legitimate option then which is why he probably would loose, they are hard to tell apart in levels of awfull. Booker is excactly the type of politician I have the very lowest opinion about. If Hillary is dishonest what is he? ibad - civil unions are likely easier to pass. I think Bernie's idea was probably to calm the situation. He is a pragmatic who knows very well when and how to make compromises. As far as Civil rights for minorities go, there is NO ARGUMENT between Sanders and Clinton. Clinton was a Goldwater girl, Sanders was arrested for civil disobedience as he marched with the civil rights movement. If you think that Hillary is the kind of person to out of actual belief stand up for such people, you're getting fooled. Hillary's one and only motif concerning gay rights is abusing it for political gain. Her campaign was an active disservice to the gay community in my view because she poisoned the climate by polarization, she adopts whatever she sees as an easy way to gain traction and for her gay marriage is a non-issue, that's why she campaigned on it (while being against it before), because flipping on that doesn't cause her any stomach pains, flipping on the economy on the other hand, that would be hard for her which is why she centered her entire campaign on identity issues and personal attacks against Trump. This is not how you help minorities. Take it from someone who lives in Germany (and is part of a goddamn minority), the 2nd most tolerant country towards homosexuals after Spain but still introducing gay marriage after the US. I think the lesson to learn here is that an approach of calm and compassionate debate is the better solution. I am part of the danish minority and previously there was heavy represseion of danish nationals under the german state. My grandfather had to fight for the goddamn nazis despite not believing in Germany and especially not nazi Germany, in the time before WW I there was also systematic repression of the danish language and everything. Today it is a model region for good neighbourly relations (the European Center for Minority Issues is centered here for excactly this reason), this was not achieved by people campaigning on outrage and fear. I agree with gay marriage but I can at least understand and respect that a lot of conservative people think that marriage should apply only to man and woman (if you read Leviticus, it also says "their blood shall be upon them", which almost sounds like a call to murder homosexuals). It's not an issue were fighting about it will help but instead what helps is to listen to them and make their fears go away. Getting gay marriage passed in Germany for instance ended up being a non issue (though Merkel also did a tactical move by getting rid of it before the election). What Bernie does right is that he wants to represent all people and bring them together. Hillary only wants a majority that gets her the win. She is in my view the opposite of respectful towards minorities, she abuses them for political gain and people buy it.
|
|