I've seen a lot of claims in this thread by people assuming certain labels either factitious or truly believing them and I want to explain to these people why these labels are either untrue based on the people in this thread, or based on who or what they support. The issue I will use to explain this is the #1 issue in Politics and my greatest issue in politics. Money.

If you do not understand the influence of money in politics, then you're missing a big part of the entire picture of how America has ended up the way it is and how the majority of the wealth has been shifted from the people to the 1% over the last 50 or so years. We are humans, we're greedy and we mostly care for ourselves and our benefit. If I gave you the last shirt off of my back you'd see that as a really good deal but if someone gave you a million dollars and said to burn the shirt you'd probably do it. What's a sentimental shirt to all this money you're getting? Some of you will say you'd reject it, others would take the money and most of us would. This concept is similar to money in politics except its not a shirt its just $1 vs $10000000. If I donate to a candidate, just a measly $5 and they're accepting any and all money. When they're elected and I call them and ask them to support a policy that would "harm" a corporation but benefit the majority of America by making that corporation pay their fair share but the candidate took thousands from the corporation, they'd ignore me and continue through with whatever the corporation wanted to do. That ensures they continue to get money from them and the corporation continues to mistreat me and whoever else is involved. Its legal Bribery.

Once you understand this you now see how it affects you. Most politicians are Lawyers, they're extremely good at lying to your face and pretending to support something they do not. Its essentially their job. They're not gonna listen to you if the corporations in their ears tell them no. They can talk a good game but then when push comes to shove they do nothing. This is why money is a factor, every candidate will listen to their donors, that's just how it is. Who your donors are will determine a lot, and you're more than likely gonna listen to the ones who gave you the most bang for your buck. If you accept corporate money, I don't care how well you speak or how intelligent you are, you're compromised.

Everyone is tested from time to time and its how they do at these tests that will prove whether they're a fighter. The reason why I go so hard on Warren is because of this analogy I came up with a while back.

You're in a fight. You're about to to take on an army by yourself but you need another powerful ally to help you out to win the day. Coming towards you is a "friend" with a gun. You know the guy he seems like a decent person but he's got sketchy written all over him. He's got the gun aimed directly at your head and is walking towards you all the while claiming he wont shoot you.

Then there's another friend this one is in your inner circle but at the same time they're sketchy to a degree. They've told a few lies and they've always been late to the defence but they seem to always end up in the best position to not be blamed for anything while at the same time claiming that they're fighting for you. They have a concealed weapon on them, you glance it.

Then there's your best friend whose telling you to be careful and mindful of everyone around you, the one whose been warning you about the people you're fighting telling you that they're out to get you, the one whose always had your back and while they aren't perfect cause no one is they've always done what they think is right for you and while they may have disappointed you in the past they did it cause they thought it was best for you.

You can only choose one of these as an ally to fight with. If you chose the guy with the gun, that's essentially how I view all the corporate candidates. Your biden, Kamala's, Pete, etc. They're pretending to be your friend and they aren't good at it while working with the corporations etc.

If you choose the concealed weapon, that how I view Warren. Sneaky and tries to be in the right when its safe, and seeing as the numbers are against you they stab you in the back. You had a chance, you saw the weapon but you decided to trust them and now you're done.

The Last is your best friend whose been by your side forever and is fighting his heart out for you. That's Bernie, that's tulsi. They aren't perfect but they have your best interest at heart and they truly want to make the future bright for you and are giving their all for you.

So if you're claiming to be a dem socialist (post capitalism) or think you're too the left of that but supporting Warren, I have a bridge to sell you.

All I'm saying is the the #1 rule in politics right now should be follow the money. If they took it you don't have to follow anything else, you can dq them. Most likely they're bought and bribed and you're not the one doing it.

Frankly, I wish Warren was as capitalist, "neoliberal", "sneaky", "with the businesses", "establishment" as people here claim she is. Would make her a much better candidate for me.

With the identity politics thing I mean more in terms of the "POC are in deep deep trouble b/c of Trump!!!1 We're going to defeat this racist asshole!" type of mostly bs rhetoric. Totally cool with VP being younger woman of color as long as they're the best candidate, what I have objections with in this area is hyper-focusing on gender and color and picking someone just BECAUSE or primarily because of those features. Ultimately it should be the best candidate, that has the people's best interests in mind. 

Yeah realistically I don't think Tulsi hasn't got a shot in hell at winning as the media and Dem heads are just too strongly opposed to her sadly, and a certain amount of people will just eat it up and believe the smears. There's no way they allow a more anti-establishment liberal w/a libertarian bent to be their nominee. But I'm still going to support her.  I see her run this year more as a stepping stone and a way to get herself out there and build a following/experience for a more realistic future run. Realistically the goal I'd like to see is - like you said, Tulsi being hired on as Secretary of State which would suit her in terms of her diplomacy & foreign policy, but I'd actually be fine with her being someone (either Bernie or Yang's) VP - as that can be a stepping stone towards presidency too. I'd definitely love to see any of a combination of Bernie/Yang/Tulsi (with one the last 2 likely taking on the VP role).

With regards to Yang - I'm not entirely sold on UBI or where the hell the money is going to come from (though given that we can seemingly pour billions into the military machine I don't see why we couldn't just shift some of that over). Ultimately I don't know enough about the subject (my forte is more in the cultural field that straight up political process/policies) but I do feel UBI could offer a safety net for young people in a more turbulent modern day economy and act as a sort of stimulus that could get things going, as young people would feel safer pouring into the economy. But w/Yang my interests like more in some of his innovative, unique ideas and is seemingly more sensible, moderate views (at least aside from UBI). 

@Jumpin So what exactly makes my support of Tulsi a "cult of personality" when yours of Warren is not? It's especially curious, given you were likely convinced of Warren's merit by a corporate media who seems to think, act, and talk about highly similar ideals in lockstep while smearing, ignoring, and silencing dissenters, in addition to swaying/influencing the public's views. Hmm THAT sounds a bit cultish to me!

And admittedly my knowledge of Warren is not terribly strong, but from what I've heard of her record matches up more with a Neolib/Neocon than a progressive, and has a knack for saying one thing while doing another. And the fact that she basically has total support of the corporate media certainly rasies an eyebrow for me, as does her choosing to support Hillary vs Bernie in 2016. So you'll excuse me if I struggle with putting my trust in her.

If you knew me, you'd know the "cult of personality" dig is utterly laughable. I use critical thinking about all else with all the facts available to me and never blindly follow anyone. That's why I also somewhat favor Bernie, Yang, (and a number of others who are not currently running for Pres), and even find at least a few traits of Warren favorable. Out of this current pool, there are probably 4-5 candidates I wouldn't mind being the nominee. But that's not good enough I guess?

Not that I need to waste my time defending myself to a stranger on the internet but that accusation of "cult of personality" "and not thinking for myself" bugs me, especially since it's the exact opposite of the way I think and operate. Are you entirely sure that's not projection on your part?

I don't think he's saying people of colour are in deep trouble, but the truth is Trump is a racist xenophobic bigoted president. He does endanger people of colour on a regular with his rhetoric, and that goes triple for Ilhan Omar.  I don't consider that Identity politics in the same way as say Hillary's "I'm with her" nonsense. I'd be lying if I said I felt safer as black man with trump in power cause people do crazy things and they are embolden by what he says, but at the same time I've never truly felt safe in this country especially walking by cops. However, I'm 100% of the opinion of choosing someone based on policy over their identity.

I think when bernie said his vp would be a younger woman of colour he meant either Nina or Tulsi, though I'd prefer tulsi as secretary of state. Yang's UBI is bad, it doesn't stack with other social safety net programs. Its either UBI or food stamps etc. For the most part it gives republicans an excuse to get rid of the other programs cause they're already getting free money. If it stacked it would be good, but as it is right now... yea... that's a hard pass.

Fair, I guess I just struggle to find instances in which the pres directly has done or said negative things about people of color (not talking about just specific digs at specific people, which he obviously loves to do - with ppl of ALL backgrounds) but actually targeting them as a group or negatively effecting them w/his policies. I know that will be a highly unpopular notion on this thread that will likely make me the target of a myriad of responses (which I'm not looking forward to combing through lol) but I sincerely fail to really see tangible instances of racism - xenophobia probably, but racism? I tend to only hear from third party/media sources who PRECIEVE it that way.. Or misinterpretations like his controversial statement about "Mexicans" actually just being about illegals being sent, or the ban of travel of a few Middle Eastern countries (which is only a select few for a limited time). Statements like "we all bleed the same color" hardly scream racism to me. 

In fact there has seemed to be a positive influence in areas like employment for these communities. Now of course you could argue that's not a result of Trump but that's another can of worms.. I can't help but feel this talk is mainly just to divide people into factions in this country. From the Trump people I've read and heard from, the vast majority couldn't care less about skin color, they might be hyper obsessed with defending what they perceive to be " 'Merican!" values, but they don't seem to care about one's identity as long as they're doing that. 

Yeah I like the idea of UBI in principle but in execution, it's tough for me to see how it wouldn't ultimately just lead to accelerated inflation. The biggest issue is if companies and service industries just start jacking up the prices of everything simply because people are pocketing an extra $1000 a month. But maybe in the short term, if it's selectively implemented, it could help spur the economy. I do sort of see it as a sort of centralized, uber version of various social programs, which actually may be the smarter, less convoluted way to go about it. I do think Yang's got his work cut out for him in explaining how it will be implemented without drastically changing the dynamics of the economy or speeding up inflation.

You are literally making up stuff to attack Warren. Either it's due to jealousy that she is winning or for some completely irrational reason. I have no idea what "corporate media" you think I am convinced by, you literally just made all that up.

Your knowledge is not great on Elizabeth Warren? Yeah, no shit. I recommend doing your homework because it's her or Biden that's going to win the primary. And it is almost certainly one of those two will be the next US President-elect.

Your next point, again, is silly; and it's already been pointed out to you earlier in this thread, so , Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton only after she had achieved victory, and so did just about all of the other Democrats at the time. Bernie Sanders did after his campaign concluded as well. It wouldn't make sense for Warren to endorse someone who wasn't going to win.

And on that last point, the one where you play the offended victim, are you new here? What did you think would come out of concern trolling in the politics forum? Did it not enter your head that you might be called out and criticized on it? If it's anything to you, you have my sincere apologies if I come off overly harsh. For one, I am not English so my tone might not translate. For two, I am a fan of heated argument (German thing, I also happen to appreciate good old Norse flyting). I have nothing against you personally, and we'd probably get along great in other threads.

No hard feelings, I realize I started it. It's just that baseless Tulsi smears "trigger" me a bit as the kids say lol. But whatever, we all got our farovites I guess. 

Yeah I've been here for over a decade, definitely not "new here" lol.

I also know it's obviously going to be either Warren or Biden unfortunately (unless Yang's crazy momentum keeps up in which case I believe he has an outside chance to pull an upset). But if it is one of those 2 I'm probably sitting this election out. I'd consider myself center-left but as a more libertarian/independent type the top two candidates hold very little appeal to me, especially Biden. I really don't feel either of those candidates would have a good chance to beat Trump unfortunately but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe slight chance of Biden before the Ukraine scandal adding to the baggage he already has..

I definitely want to look more into Warren, I at least like the fact that she at least seems to want to hold big tech accountable and seems to stand for free speech on the internet/social media, but I still have my doubts about her overall. She rings as "Hillary lite" to me.

She's no where close to Hillary. I get the mistrust people have of her as I have some reservations of her as well. She's not perfect but no candidate is. She has a lot of flaws and really big mess ups like claiming Native heritage but she is a progressive albeit a little too conservative, at least for me. Yeah but looking more into her would be a good move for you.

If people think they're not sexist, then they ask themselves why it's pretty much only ever the female candidates who are the subjects of controversy and ridicule on this thread.

THANK YOU!!

Jesus Christ, so many people have contributed to this thread since that post and it looks like only you could be bothered to point out that this was a fucking straight up LIE!!