2020 US Election (Part One)

[GoodEnoughForMe]

“Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did.”
“(It's) bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nursa in Syria”
“it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.”

She said she would do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe, including considering torture, in a ticking time bomb scenario because 24 is so real lol.
She appeared on Fox News to criticize Obama for not using "Islamic" terrorists.

I don't know what else to say!

 

[Berzerker]

http://progressivearmy.com/2019/01/22/in-defense-of-tulsi-gabbard/

She called Assad a brutal dictator and voted to ban enhanced interrogation techniques

I think this is a double standard, Pelosi and Kerry met with Assad but they dont get the label of apologist and Obama and Clinton met with dictators but they get a pass when their wars kill thousands. But thats okay, heart disease kills thousands too.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

No, but if we're going to present Gabbard as different (anti-war) from the US standard while her statements/meetings/etc., are the same, then she really isn't any different, and this whole argument falls apart.

 

[Socrates99]

“Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did.”
“(It's) bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nursa in Syria”
“it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.”

She said she would do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe, including considering torture, in a ticking time bomb scenario because 24 is so real lol.
She appeared on Fox News to criticize Obama for not using "Islamic" terrorists.

I don't know what else to say!

If her intention is to bomb the **** out of the middle east why did she push the stop arming terrorists act? Why is she so critical of Yemen? Why is she so slow to condemn Assad when it'd be more expedient to just do it? She's against the interventionist wars that attempt to topple foreign governments. She is against Al Qaida/Nusra but is that a controversial position? They're fundamentalist extremists nobody should support. When she made those quotes up there, especially the one about "Obama not bombing them but Russia did" one she's pointing out that we were on the wrong side in that conflict aiding fundamentalist rebels (offshoots, again, of Al Qaida) against Russia and Syria. As long as she's laser focused on the people who actually attacked us and is willing to work with local governments to stop them I'm fine with it.

IMO we'd have been done over there a decade ago if it had stayed focused on Al Qaida. Instead we've funded the same groups that attacked us in the same dumb proxy wars she wants to stop.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Again; that's exactly the same policy as Obama essentially, then. Droning and bombing Al Qaeda relentlessly and expecting no mission creep, not really in favor of nation building, etc. Working to do anything to prevent a war with Iran, etc., etc. She'd basically fit right in with his doctrine.

That's cool if she wants to support a guy who gassed his own citizens, but maybe the most non-interventionist policy would be to actually not support or arm anyone in the Syrian war. Russian bombs have killed tons of civilians, just like US ones. Again, cool. It's just the same crap packaged differently.

 

[Socrates99]

Again; that's exactly the same policy as Obama essentially, then. Droning and bombing Al Qaeda relentlessly and expecting no mission creep, not really in favor of nation building, etc. Working to do anything to prevent a war with Iran, etc., etc. She'd basically fit right in with his doctrine.

That's cool if she wants to support a guy who gassed his own citizens, but maybe the most non-interventionist policy would be to actually not support or arm anyone in the Syrian war. Russian bombs have killed tons of civilians, just like US ones. Again, cool. It's just the same crap packaged differently.

You guys keep saying "support" but there's a big difference between "supporting" and "not toppling."

 

[Lexicus]

You guys keep saying "support" but there's a big difference between "supporting" and "not toppling."

Yeah, but there's a big difference between "not toppling" and "giving them weapons, money, rhetorical cover because they're bombing the turr'rists"

 

[Imaus]

It has been, and still is, my view that everyone below 5% needs to drop out ASAP. They're kiding themselves and just hurting the whole process by being glory-seeking dolts.

O'Rourke
Booker
Yang (So long UBI)
Klobuchar
Gabbard (Ouch)
Castro
Williamson
Steyer (Who?)
Gillibrand
Bullock
Delaney
Bennet
Ryan
de Blasio (Come and manage the damn city you goit).

They still have 13.7% of the pie which needs to be urgently relocated elsewhere.

This leaves Buttigeg, Bernie, Warren, Biden, and Harris. I doubt Buttigeg or Harris will nab it, the race is between Bernie, Warren, and Biden. Bernie is mostly stagnant while Warren rises, so it's Warren vs Biden. In that case, my vote goes to her, definitely.

 

[Lexicus]

Everyone below 5% needs to drop out ASAP. They're kiding themselves and just hurting the whole process by being glory-seeking dolts.

O'Rourke
Booker
Yang (So long UBI)
Klobuchar
Gabbard (Ouch)
Castro
Williamson
Steyer (Who?)
Gillibrand
Bullock
Delaney
Bennet
Ryan
de Blasio (Come and manage the damn city you goit).

This leaves Buttigeg, Bernie, Warren, Biden, and Harris. I doubt Buttigeg or Harris will nab it, the race is between Bernie, Warren, and Biden. Bernie is mostly stagnant while Warren rises, so it's Warren vs Biden. In that case, my vote goes to her, definitely.

I hope you're right.

 

[Narz]

It has been, and still is, my view that everyone below 5% needs to drop out ASAP. They're kiding themselves and just hurting the whole process by being glory-seeking dolts.

Trump had under 5% early in 2015 and went on to win.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm getting more optimistic. Perhaps the next recession can't be delayed until after the elections. And a candidate with a genuine new policy will be appreciated.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would vote for Warren over Biden. Don't all the top contenders have good numbers vs Trump?

Would prefer a white male candidate not because it's my preference but because where the Dems need to win. And they haven't nominated one since 2004.

Warren reminds me a bit if Helen Clark, she was our best PM we've had in recent decades.

Some of the minor candidates I think would have made better Presidents but hey if the can't win a primary whatever. Name recognition Trump's policy.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'll vote for any democrat against Trump. I do think that the Dems need a white male on the ticket somewhere. Under 60 would be best.

 

[Ajidica]

Would prefer a white male candidate not because it's my preference but because where the Dems need to win.

The best results the Democrats had in recent years was with a charismatic black guy, and Clinton did win the popular vote by 3 million votes.

 

[Zardnaar]

The best results the Democrats had in recent years was with a charismatic black guy, and Clinton did win the popular vote by 3 million votes.

Popular vote doesn't matter in the USA. Can't get elected you have no power.

Obama had charisma and the backlash lead to Trump. You also need the Senate and there's no liberal states to pick up.

Obama didn't achieve that much either. Better than the current pumpkin, and bonus woke points I suppose.

I voted for Jacinda, she's decent but she's not as good as what Helen Clark was. Our previous government had to go though, baby steps. She over promised though, I think shell win next year but it's possible she loses.

 

[Ajidica]

Obama had charisma and the backlash lead to Trump.

You don't defeat racists and the alt-reich by meeting them in the middle.

 

[Commodore]

Don't all the top contenders have good numbers vs Trump?

Yeah, but 2016 proved that means nothing. Hillary had good numbers against Trump right up until election night.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, but 2016 proved that means nothing. Hillary had good numbers against Trump right up until election night.

Her numbers weren't that good and iirc were in the margin of error.

Things are also different, 3 years of Trump and 2018 midterms.

If you beat the GoP 4 elections in a row including mid terms and take the Senate the GoP will either have to reform or be licked out if power.

I'm fairly confident Trump is gone burger, senate idk.

 

[Narz]

Would prefer a white male candidate not because it's my preference but because where the Dems need to win. And they haven't nominated one since 2004.

I'll vote for any democrat against Trump. I do think that the Dems need a white male on the ticket somewhere. Under 60 would be best.

80% of the population & almost all democrats don't care about race (except extreme self-hating SJW's who would prefer non-white).

So sad how superficial society still is after all these years. Better to get the paint color just right than actually build a decent house.

 

[Zardnaar]

80% of the population & almost all democrats don't care about race (except extreme self-hating SJW's who would prefer non-white).

So sad how superficial society still is after all these years. Better to get the paint color just right than actually build a decent house.

Like it or not you might need the right colours on the resource consent to let you build the house in the first place.

I'm a pragmatist, if you can't start building the house to begin with what colour ink you're using doesn't matter.