Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Poliwrathlord said:
Yang is the only one who has my support at this point. His campaign was my first political donation.

Tulsi was mine. Thinking of donating to Yang as well. 

My only concerns for him is that, while he has some great ideas - he's going to have a rough time convincing many in this country that we can afford to hand out $1000 dividends to all Americans (or at least 18-65, and not already on government aid of some kind, but still). The talks about the concerns of Automation are also insightful, though I feel he's a little ahead of his time with these notions. Most Americans I don't believe see this is a pressing concern yet, and many that do likely don't see it manifesting into a major issue for years, if not decades. 

But I definitely like many of his proposals/ideals. He's the only candidate I think I'd actually go out and vote for against Trump, along with Tulsi, and possibly Bernie (at least if he picks her as VP). 

I see Yang as more of a potential future president, given his policies. But I think he's ahead of his time. 

For now? Tulsi/Bernie or Bernie/Tulsi all the way!

Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 26 March 2019

An interesting Video analysis about who could become Bernie's VP if he would win the nomination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl3TlcRKAIk

Warren would be Bernie's most likely pick according to him, followed by Gabbard, then Buttigieg (as a Pence counterweight), Harris (progressive enough but allows to draw in more conservative democrats) and finally Yang (for Blue collar voters who voted for trump last time).

And like one of the video's commenters says: Tulsi for VP, Yang as Labor secretary and Warren for the treasury. Couldn't agree more on that



How did I miss this thread?



Lot of talk about Tulsi Gabbard in this thread. Since no one responded to me when I posted it in the Yang thread, I'm reposting my rant on her here. It belongs in this thread more anyway.

I used to be really big on Tulsi, until a few things popped up about her that gave me significant pause.

1) First, there's her record on gay rights. She opposed gay rights, using pretty nasty language. Check out the link here from a local newpaper. She was a freshman congresswoman in the Hawaii House of Representatives at the time, and I'd like to particularly call attention to this quote from the article: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii," said Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, who directed her testimony at Hamakawa. "As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists." Emphasis mine. Yikes. Homosexual extremists? This was just the young gay rights movement, and as you may know, Hawaii was an early victory. She was pretty against it. Also there's this article by Rolling Stone. It's obviously a hit piece, but it brings up several very valid points I can't ignore, like that she was against a bill meant to prevent anti-gay bullying, on the grounds that she feared it would teach children that being gay was "normal and natural" (guess what Gabbard, it is...). The same article talks about her being a proud supporter of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage, her far-right dad's homophobic organization. I understand that she claims to have evolved, but I don't buy it any more than I buy that Hillary Clinton has evolved on the matter. She was too rabidly against it, and at such a young age too, to just suddenly evolve like that. I don't buy it. In fact, in this article that's more friendly to her, she tells the interviewer that her personal views haven't evolved on homosexuality, she just takes a libertarian viewpoint on it that the government shouldn't be a moral arbiter. I can appreciate that viewpoint that the government shouldn't legislate morals, but I certainly don't trust someone who was and apparently still is that virulently homophobic to protect the rights of the LGBTQ community on the grounds that she doesn't want the government to be moral arbiter. Trump said he would be good to LGBTQ as well, I believe in his inauguration speech, but now transsexuals are banned from the military, among other culturally conservative victories. She claims to be culturally libertarian, but she's culturally conservative and her supporters on the right know it and will want some wins out of her. An example of such potential wins we might see in spite of her claimed libertarian stance on the matter? Look at Trump's court nominations. She's supported them, and attacked her own fellow Hawaiian representative Mazie Hirono, as well as Kamala Harris, accusing them of religious bigotry just because they opposed the nomination of Brian Buescher, who has a record of partisan activism against LGBTQ equality. That is an absurd accusation, and their concerns were well-founded and based on observable actions, not prejudice against a belief system. I could go on, as there's a shocking amount of evidence that she's not a friend of anyone who believes in LGBTQ equality, but I think I've said enough here.

2. She's way too friendly with right-wing dictators and has a creepy authoritarian flavor to her. She uses "peace" and being "against the war industry" as reasoning for her foreign policy stances, which was something I loved about her at first, but I have other options if I want to promote peace and staying out of fights we have no place in, or fighting against the war industry. I don't need Tulsi. It's one thing to be in favor of staying out of Syria or not escalating things with Russia, it's quite another thing to meet with and actively support the talking points of Assad and praise Putin for military interventionism. That meeting with Assad had her escorted by Bassam and Elie Khawam, officials of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. I'd link that, but I'm at work and would rather not go to such websites. Suffice to say, the SSNP is a political and paramilitary organization, it supports Assad, and has been very violent about doing so. It has also done many other violent things in its past, including several assassinations and suicide bombings. It seems to hate the US, Israel, Jews in general, and is extremely authoritarian, with an ultimate goal of Syria conquering Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Cyprus for the "Greater Syrian" race. Not something a patriotic American or sane person in general would want to associate with. Meanwhile Assad is himself a vicious dictator that has committed horrible crimes against his own people. She chooses to look the other way and support him because she claims that to not support him would be to support "regime change" but apparently associating with expansionist nationalists is fine. We should never have gotten directly involved in Syria, to be sure, but rather have supported a local coalition against ISIS, and local rebellion against Assad, through material support and training. He's a evil man. But she supports him, as well as Putin. Indeed she seems to support all of Russia's endeavors. She's not truly for peace, she's for America getting out of the way of dictators that want to rule their countries with an iron fist. Think it's just Assad and Putin? Think again. She also supports brutal Egyptian dictator General Abdel Fatteh el Sisi. That link is from her own campaign site, and showers him with praise, and claims supporting this dictator is the only way to stop Islamic extremism. I'm no fan of Islamic extremists and terrorists, but why does she always turn to dictators to stop them? Violent ones that commit crimes against humanity at that? Then denies that they're violent? Why? I don't trust her. And yes, Sisi is nasty. Here's a bit on a massacre he ordered, from Human Rights Watch. She also claims to be "conflicted" on whether torture is acceptable. Here's a video of an interview where she states she's conflicted on torture and would consider using it, using the typical justification of "bUt WhAt If ThE tErRoRiStS hAvE a NuClEaR bOmB!?!" Time stamp is 15:47. Also keep in mind that people like Steve Bannon, white supremacist and ethno-nationalist Richard Spencer, and former KKK grand wizard David Duke have all praised or endorsed her. So not only does she seem to like right-wing authoritarians, they seem to like her back. Both liberals and libertarians alike should not call her their friend.

3. She has creepy connections with a cult. Her father claims to be Catholic, she claims to Hindu, but they're lying. They're part of a Hare Krishna cult known as the Science of Identity Foundation. It's probably where her hatred of homosexuality comes from, as it's rabidly homophobic. I suppose you can argue that there's not definitive proof that they're part of the cult, but the connections are too suspicious. I'll let you look into them yourself, but between this and the other unsavory things about Gabbard, I'm done with her.

I used to want Gabbard as Bernie's VP so she could set up for a Presidential run after him. Now I want her out of politics entirely.

Edit: Whoops, forgot the links...

Last edited by HylianSwordsman - on 26 March 2019

Bernie has the substance, a consistently long track record on a lot of the polices others are just now endorsing, and huge support, he appears to be the favorite atm, Beto appears to also have the support at least early on, time will tell with him, Maybe Elizabeth Warren could move up the polls if she gets her message across effectively, Biden seems to only appeal to the older demographic establishment, he is swimming against the current and I think his prospects will wane, the sensible money is on Bernie right now



HylianSwordsman said:

Lot of talk about Tulsi Gabbard in this thread. Since no one responded to me when I posted it in the Yang thread, I'm reposting my rant on her here. It belongs in this thread more anyway.

I used to be really big on Tulsi, until a few things popped up about her that gave me significant pause.

1) First, there's her record on gay rights. She opposed gay rights, using pretty nasty language. Check out the link here from a local newpaper. She was a freshman congresswoman in the Hawaii House of Representatives at the time, and I'd like to particularly call attention to this quote from the article: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii," said Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, who directed her testimony at Hamakawa. "As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists." Emphasis mine. Yikes. Homosexual extremists? This was just the young gay rights movement, and as you may know, Hawaii was an early victory. She was pretty against it. Also there's this article by Rolling Stone. It's obviously a hit piece, but it brings up several very valid points I can't ignore, like that she was against a bill meant to prevent anti-gay bullying, on the grounds that she feared it would teach children that being gay was "normal and natural" (guess what Gabbard, it is...). The same article talks about her being a proud supporter of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage, her far-right dad's homophobic organization. I understand that she claims to have evolved, but I don't buy it any more than I buy that Hillary Clinton has evolved on the matter. She was too rabidly against it, and at such a young age too, to just suddenly evolve like that. I don't buy it. In fact, in this article that's more friendly to her, she tells the interviewer that her personal views haven't evolved on homosexuality, she just takes a libertarian viewpoint on it that the government shouldn't be a moral arbiter. I can appreciate that viewpoint that the government shouldn't legislate morals, but I certainly don't trust someone who was and apparently still is that virulently homophobic to protect the rights of the LGBTQ community on the grounds that she doesn't want the government to be moral arbiter. Trump said he would be good to LGBTQ as well, I believe in his inauguration speech, but now transsexuals are banned from the military, among other culturally conservative victories. She claims to be culturally libertarian, but she's culturally conservative and her supporters on the right know it and will want some wins out of her. An example of such potential wins we might see in spite of her claimed libertarian stance on the matter? Look at Trump's court nominations. She's supported them, and attacked her own fellow Hawaiian representative Mazie Hirono, as well as Kamala Harris, accusing them of religious bigotry just because they opposed the nomination of Brian Buescher, who has a record of partisan activism against LGBTQ equality. That is an absurd accusation, and their concerns were well-founded and based on observable actions, not prejudice against a belief system. I could go on, as there's a shocking amount of evidence that she's not a friend of anyone who believes in LGBTQ equality, but I think I've said enough here.

2. She's way too friendly with right-wing dictators and has a creepy authoritarian flavor to her. She uses "peace" and being "against the war industry" as reasoning for her foreign policy stances, which was something I loved about her at first, but I have other options if I want to promote peace and staying out of fights we have no place in, or fighting against the war industry. I don't need Tulsi. It's one thing to be in favor of staying out of Syria or not escalating things with Russia, it's quite another thing to meet with and actively support the talking points of Assad and praise Putin for military interventionism. That meeting with Assad had her escorted by Bassam and Elie Khawam, officials of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. I'd link that, but I'm at work and would rather not go to such websites. Suffice to say, the SSNP is a political and paramilitary organization, it supports Assad, and has been very violent about doing so. It has also done many other violent things in its past, including several assassinations and suicide bombings. It seems to hate the US, Israel, Jews in general, and is extremely authoritarian, with an ultimate goal of Syria conquering Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Cyprus for the "Greater Syrian" race. Not something a patriotic American or sane person in general would want to associate with. Meanwhile Assad is himself a vicious dictator that has committed horrible crimes against his own people. She chooses to look the other way and support him because she claims that to not support him would be to support "regime change" but apparently associating with expansionist nationalists is fine. We should never have gotten directly involved in Syria, to be sure, but rather have supported a local coalition against ISIS, and local rebellion against Assad, through material support and training. He's a evil man. But she supports him, as well as Putin. Indeed she seems to support all of Russia's endeavors. She's not truly for peace, she's for America getting out of the way of dictators that want to rule their countries with an iron fist. Think it's just Assad and Putin? Think again. She also supports brutal Egyptian dictator General Abdel Fatteh el Sisi. That link is from her own campaign site, and showers him with praise, and claims supporting this dictator is the only way to stop Islamic extremism. I'm no fan of Islamic extremists and terrorists, but why does she always turn to dictators to stop them? Violent ones that commit crimes against humanity at that? Then denies that they're violent? Why? I don't trust her. And yes, Sisi is nasty. Here's a bit on a massacre he ordered, from Human Rights Watch. She also claims to be "conflicted" on whether torture is acceptable. Here's a video of an interview where she states she's conflicted on torture and would consider using it, using the typical justification of "bUt WhAt If ThE tErRoRiStS hAvE a NuClEaR bOmB!?!" Time stamp is 15:47. Also keep in mind that people like Steve Bannon, white supremacist and ethno-nationalist Richard Spencer, and former KKK grand wizard David Duke have all praised or endorsed her. So not only does she seem to like right-wing authoritarians, they seem to like her back. Both liberals and libertarians alike should not call her their friend.

3. She has creepy connections with a cult. Her father claims to be Catholic, she claims to Hindu, but they're lying. They're part of a Hare Krishna cult known as the Science of Identity Foundation. It's probably where her hatred of homosexuality comes from, as it's rabidly homophobic. I suppose you can argue that there's not definitive proof that they're part of the cult, but the connections are too suspicious. I'll let you look into them yourself, but between this and the other unsavory things about Gabbard, I'm done with her.

I used to want Gabbard as Bernie's VP so she could set up for a Presidential run after him. Now I want her out of politics entirely.

Edit: Whoops, forgot the links...

1. That's old history, and her later record shows she genuinely did a 180 in the meanwhile in that domain.

2. I agree she's a bit iffy in that domain. She mostly doesn't want to exert violence but seems to gloss over when these dictators do so. However, she is right to say that the US has no say in the politics of other countries.

About these dictators being the only way to quell Islamism, it does have some roots in truth. Saddam Hussein for instance hated those religious fanatics and hunted them down, and he's by far not the only one. Most of those dictators base their power in secular matters, so ultrareligious extremists are considered a threat to them anyway and thus fought against. However, she shouldn't support them without some strong conditions like opening their politics for elections, for instance, and I think that she's at fault for being too passive against them, even just vocally.

Steve Bannon supports her, but that doesn't mean she's necessarily happy about it. She pointed that also out in an interview. Pretty sure that falls under unwanted assistance.

3. I don't trust that website in so far that anything that ain't Judaeo-Christian doctrine seems to be called a cult or a sect there. Even if she's part of that Hindu church, I do think it's way overblown. Also, call me one religion that isn't homophobic - and yet adherents don't have to be so in any way.



As for who I personally support, Bernie all the way. I don't care if he's old. So what? What, are you worried he dies? If he picks a good VP, we could actually get more than 8 years of that VP if he were to die in office. But he won't, he's healthy. Nothing beats his consistency. He's been on the right side of history for 40+ years, even when it was incredibly unpopular to do so, and even when it sidelined him politically. You can't beat that in authenticity, consistency, and trustworthiness in a politician. Even if you don't agree with absolutely everything he does, you know he'll stick to his principles and that he genuinely wants to do right by all of us.

As for his VP, as of right now, I'd be open to Warren, Yang, and Buttigieg, in that order. Never Gabbard. I'd take Harris or even Gillibrand before Gabbard. I'm no establishment guy, but I'm not that desperate to be anti-establishment that I'd trust Gabbard. Hell I'd take Biden before Gabbard. It won't come to that, of course, as Bernie has plenty of choices. Gillam and Abrams aren't running for president yet, but whether they do or not, they'd make great VPs. Remember, the VP doesn't have to be a presidential candidate. I'd take Nina Turner, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, amongst others. If he gets a second term, AOC would just barely be eligible and would instantly be my number one pick for his VP.



Bofferbrauer2 said:

1. That's old history, and her later record shows she genuinely did a 180 in the meanwhile in that domain.

2. I agree she's a bit iffy in that domain. She mostly doesn't want to exert violence but seems to gloss over when these dictators do so. However, she is right to say that the US has no say in the politics of other countries.

About these dictators being the only way to quell Islamism, it does have some roots in truth. Saddam Hussein for instance hated those religious fanatics and hunted them down, and he's by far not the only one. Most of those dictators base their power in secular matters, so ultrareligious extremists are considered a threat to them anyway and thus fought against. However, she shouldn't support them without some strong conditions like opening their politics for elections, for instance, and I think that she's at fault for being too passive against them, even just vocally.

Steve Bannon supports her, but that doesn't mean she's necessarily happy about it. She pointed that also out in an interview. Pretty sure that falls under unwanted assistance.

3. I don't trust that website in so far that anything that ain't Judaeo-Christian doctrine seems to be called a cult or a sect there. Even if she's part of that Hindu church, I do think it's way overblown. Also, call me one religion that isn't homophobic - and yet adherents don't have to be so in any way.

1. No, she did not. Like, at all. She actually is still personally against homosexuality. If you read that whole paragraph, I cite sources showing she still is against it but just doesn't want the government to legislate her personal morals. Biden uses the same libertarian excuse to be personally against abortion but not vote to restrict it. On some level I respect this reasoning, but I don't want someone who uses this reasoning to represent me at the highest levels of government where they'll be setting the agenda for LGBT rights, choosing who will defend against legal attacks against LGBT rights, and is in support of fundamentalist Christian activist right wing judges chosen by Trump. 

2. There's a difference between not tearing down democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators (as we have a history of) and stopping dictators that are oppressing their people. I'm not in favor of all our constant U.S. military involvement, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support our values when we see them taking root in other countries, and do what we can to thwart the aims of dictators, particularly expansionist aims, and human-rights violations. Also, I bet Trump or at least his defenders would use the same logic to defend white nationalists supporting him. It's not a good sign when your efforts exicte fascists and white supremacists. It shouldn't necessarily be disqualifying, but they don't support her for her economic positions, that's for sure.

3. It was the most in depth source I could find. There's sources all over the web, take your pick. She has connections to a cult. I'm not okay with that.



HylianSwordsman said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

1. That's old history, and her later record shows she genuinely did a 180 in the meanwhile in that domain.

2. I agree she's a bit iffy in that domain. She mostly doesn't want to exert violence but seems to gloss over when these dictators do so. However, she is right to say that the US has no say in the politics of other countries.

About these dictators being the only way to quell Islamism, it does have some roots in truth. Saddam Hussein for instance hated those religious fanatics and hunted them down, and he's by far not the only one. Most of those dictators base their power in secular matters, so ultrareligious extremists are considered a threat to them anyway and thus fought against. However, she shouldn't support them without some strong conditions like opening their politics for elections, for instance, and I think that she's at fault for being too passive against them, even just vocally.

Steve Bannon supports her, but that doesn't mean she's necessarily happy about it. She pointed that also out in an interview. Pretty sure that falls under unwanted assistance.

3. I don't trust that website in so far that anything that ain't Judaeo-Christian doctrine seems to be called a cult or a sect there. Even if she's part of that Hindu church, I do think it's way overblown. Also, call me one religion that isn't homophobic - and yet adherents don't have to be so in any way.

1. No, she did not. Like, at all. She actually is still personally against homosexuality. If you read that whole paragraph, I cite sources showing she still is against it but just doesn't want the government to legislate her personal morals. Biden uses the same libertarian excuse to be personally against abortion but not vote to restrict it. On some level I respect this reasoning, but I don't want someone who uses this reasoning to represent me at the highest levels of government where they'll be setting the agenda for LGBT rights, choosing who will defend against legal attacks against LGBT rights, and is in support of fundamentalist Christian activist right wing judges chosen by Trump. 

2. There's a difference between not tearing down democratically elected governments and replacing them with dictators (as we have a history of) and stopping dictators that are oppressing their people. I'm not in favor of all our constant U.S. military involvement, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support our values when we see them taking root in other countries, and do what we can to thwart the aims of dictators, particularly expansionist aims, and human-rights violations. Also, I bet Trump or at least his defenders would use the same logic to defend white nationalists supporting him. It's not a good sign when your efforts exicte fascists and white supremacists. It shouldn't necessarily be disqualifying, but they don't support her for her economic positions, that's for sure.

3. It was the most in depth source I could find. There's sources all over the web, take your pick. She has connections to a cult. I'm not okay with that.

1. I checked all the links, but could't find anything that support your claim that she would still be against homosexuality. The first one is 15 years old and outdated, the Rolling Stone quote is also from that time if you read it correctly. Not sure if you linked the right Ozy video as she's not been talking about homosexuality at any point there. Finally, you seem to think it being impossible that she felt Buescher being left out was because of his religion, which would have violated Article VI of the constitution. However, I agree that was misguided.

Now, for some proofs that she has changed her views on the subject:

https://youtu.be/HJOX4yqqwQE

from 2012, where she apologizes for her past.

She has opposed the Defense of Marriage Act before it got deemed unconstitutional, and is supporting Obergefell v Hodges, which guarantees the right of same-sex couples to get married.

https://www.hrc.org/blog/hawaii-congressional-delegation-calls-for-marriage-equality , where she is part of a movement to bring same-sex marriage to Hawaii, saying that Civil union sare not the same as a reall marriage. This coming from the Human Rights Campaign, which are adamantly in support of same-sex marriage, and the fact that Tulsi has apparently a perfect 100 score with them nowadays shows that she genuinely changed her views on the subject.

Considering her religious Father and thus traditional education (even more so as she got home-schooled), I can see how she got raised staunchly against same-sex marriage, but understand that she has wisened up over the years.

2. The problem of deposing a dictator like that is that it creates a power vacuum, which will get exploited by more extremist groups. We could see that in Irak, in Afghanistan and Lybia. This is also the reason why Bush senior left Saddam in office - he was at that point the lesser of the evils. Also, the democracy the US brings always seems to be based on the very outdated US election system, not necessarily helping the case.

3. I think that is based on a misunderstanding how Hinduism works. In contrary to Christianity for instance, there is no standard, orthodox way to it, and everyone lives his faith differently, each with his own philosophy to it. Hence why there are so many different temples. But sites like the one you linked seem to not understand that that is normal and expected to Hinduism and not a splinter sect like it would be in case of a Judaeo-Christian religion.

She also declines any Hindu meeting where Vishwa Hindu Parishad participates due to it's being a very nationalistic Indian group doing pretty much everything that the article you linked claims her to be doing. https://www.news18.com/news/world/not-participating-in-indias-partisan-politics-us-lawmaker-tulsi-gabbard-denies-chairing-world-hindu-congress-1871215.html 



She is my pick for 2028, amazing woman