Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Gabbard 3rd party

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Well she is definetly becoming more of a troll in her golden years, though she's long overdue for some fun.

She's been pretty quiet. I kind of thing it would be funny if she stayed in West Virginia (Trump's best state) for the entire 2020 General Election and campaigned daily throughout the state against Trump. I don't think it would do anything one way or the other, but it would be funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

She's been pretty quiet. I kind of thing it would be funny if she stayed in West Virginia (Trump's best state) for the entire 2020 General Election and campaigned daily throughout the state against Trump. I don't think it would do anything one way or the other, but it would be funny. 

This would help Trump in West Virginia I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr. Insano said:

This would help Trump in West Virginia I would think.

He’d win it no matter what. I just think it would be funny because it would irritate the hell out of that state if she just stayed there for months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 12:00 PM, vcczar said:

 

I know I would be irate enough to punch her in the face if she walked by me.

This is sexist and you should apologize

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

This is sexist and you should apologize

It is not,he didnt say he would punch her in the face because she is a woman.I hate Tulsi too but i love and respect Warren,AOC,Nina Turner and many other female leaders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

This is sexist and you should apologize

Yeah I’m not punching her because of her gender. If you read a comment later I say I’d punch any left leaning candidate that runs independent in the general election. The punch is contingent upon action and not upon gender. Naturally, I would not punch her or any of the others, male or female, if they don’t run independent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

This is sexist and you should apologize

I'm pretty sure this is satire, everyone 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I'm pretty sure this is satire, everyone 😛

I mean its hard to tell sometimes lol. But she shouldn't(but most likely will) run as a 3rd Party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I'm pretty sure this is satire, everyone 😛

Tone and sarcasm are almost impossible to judge on a forum. I'm also naturally terrible at picking up on sarcasm. However, I'm somehow good at picking up on irony, usually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have numerous criticisms and problems with former Sec. Clinton, I think she did our country a great service by calling out Tulsi Gabbard for what she is.

Gabbard's a fan of Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi.  She belongs to a literal cult, and local Hawai'i papers have covered this extensively.  She hates gay people and Muslims.  She is always scurrying off to FOX News to attack Democrats and the Democratic Party.  Her father was a local Republican politician, until he switched parties and became a DINO.  She has a center-right voting record in a solid left district.  She appeals to what I call the "TYT left" - the extreme, fringe wing of the far left that sounds quite similar to the far right (I'm also looking at you, Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept).  This extremist element is quite good at making excuses for brutal dictators and telling people how terrible the Democrats are, while conveniently leaving out any criticism of Republicans.  With democracy itself (in many countries, not just the US) literally under attack by Vladimir Putin, I think this is a dangerous position to take.  And I think the fact that she is somewhat physically attractive is a factor in how many right-wing men seem to like her.

I think a larger question, apart from the Clinton vs. Gabbard brouhaha, is how do political parties deal with infiltrators?  Should they be ignored? Called out?  What's the right strategy, if you think one of your candidates is a total fake?  I don't have quite as many clear answers for that broader question.  But I am quite happy Hillary shined a light on Tulsi Gabbard - someone had to, and if it was one of the current candidates, they'd risk damaging their own candidacy.  Hillary Clinton doesn't have to worry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, darkmoon72 said:

While I have numerous criticisms and problems with former Sec. Clinton, I think she did our country a great service by calling out Tulsi Gabbard for what she is.

Gabbard's a fan of Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi.  She belongs to a literal cult, and local Hawai'i papers have covered this extensively.  She hates gay people and Muslims.  She is always scurrying off to FOX News to attack Democrats and the Democratic Party.  Her father was a local Republican politician, until he switched parties and became a DINO.  She has a center-right voting record in a solid left district.  She appeals to what I call the "TYT left" - the extreme, fringe wing of the far left that sounds quite similar to the far right (I'm also looking at you, Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept).  This extremist element is quite good at making excuses for brutal dictators and telling people how terrible the Democrats are, while conveniently leaving out any criticism of Republicans.  With democracy itself (in many countries, not just the US) literally under attack by Vladimir Putin, I think this is a dangerous position to take.  And I think the fact that she is somewhat physically attractive is a factor in how many right-wing men seem to like her.

I think a larger question, apart from the Clinton vs. Gabbard brouhaha, is how do political parties deal with infiltrators?  Should they be ignored? Called out?  What's the right strategy, if you think one of your candidates is a total fake?  I don't have quite as many clear answers for that broader question.  But I am quite happy Hillary shined a light on Tulsi Gabbard - someone had to, and if it was one of the current candidates, they'd risk damaging their own candidacy.  Hillary Clinton doesn't have to worry about that.

I don't like Gabbard or Clinton. However, I think it would have been better to just ignore Gabbard and not highlight Gabbard. I think Clinton being the one to attack Gabbard is only going to hurt Democrats that are wishing to prevent interparty strife. Gabbard can barely make the debates, so fortunately she's sort of a minor influence. Clinton shouldn't treat her like she's a major problem or major candidate. This also reinforces my belief that Clinton should just stay out of the 2020 race except maybe in NY and in the Deep South, which are her stronger regions among Democrat support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't like Gabbard or Clinton. However, I think it would have been better to just ignore Gabbard and not highlight Gabbard. I think Clinton being the one to attack Gabbard is only going to hurt Democrats that are wishing to prevent interparty strife. Gabbard can barely make the debates, so fortunately she's sort of a minor influence. Clinton shouldn't treat her like she's a major problem or major candidate. This also reinforces my belief that Clinton should just stay out of the 2020 race except maybe in NY and in the Deep South, which are her stronger regions among Democrat support. 

I disagree.  I think there's a strong chance Gabbard will go third-party and be Jill Stein 2.0 if (when) she loses the Democratic primaries.  Now there's a giant spotlight being shined on that very possibility.  I think the point was to scupper any chance Gabbard had of going third-party, not to stop her from winning the Democratic nomination.  Keep in mind the number of votes for Jill Stein in 2016 was larger than the margin between Clinton and Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the 3 states Clinton needed to win.  I think Hillary would like to avoid a repeat occurrence, and I don't blame her.  While Greens have had some measure of success in other countries, in the United States, Green, as the saying goes, is still an acronym that means "Getting Republicans Elected Every November".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, darkmoon72 said:

I disagree.  I think there's a strong chance Gabbard will go third-party and be Jill Stein 2.0 if (when) she loses the Democratic primaries.  Now there's a giant spotlight being shined on that very possibility.  I think the point was to scupper any chance Gabbard had of going third-party, not to stop her from winning the Democratic nomination.  Keep in mind the number of votes for Jill Stein in 2016 was larger than the margin between Clinton and Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the 3 states Clinton needed to win.  I think Hillary would like to avoid a repeat occurrence, and I don't blame her.  While Greens have had some measure of success in other countries, in the United States, Green, as the saying goes, is still an acronym that means "Getting Republicans Elected Every November".

I think attacking her now will just encourage her to do it and it will also give her media attention. Just ignore Gabbard. Most voters don't even know who she is. Getting her name out there, even via negative attacks and negative press, is just going to help her get Twitter followers, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabbard is pro-choice, therefore she's a Democrat.  Everything else is negotiable.

Clinton buying into the conspiracy theory of Gabbard as a Russian agent is just the latest iteration of her inability to accept any of the blame for blowing the 2016 election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pilight said:

Gabbard is pro-choice, therefore she's a Democrat.  Everything else is negotiable.

And people on this forum wonder why I always criticize the credibility, integrity, sensibility, and coherence of U.S. Party politics. In much of the rest of the world, the two main U.S. Parties are effectively non-parties. The closest comparisons would be the post-Soviet Parties of Power (United Russia, New Azerbaijan, Nur-Otan, the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan, the Liberal Democratic Party of Uzbekistan, the Liberal Democratic of Tadzhikistan, and formerly the Party of Regions, the Republican Party of Armenia, and the Union of Citizens), which also, like the two main U.S. Parties, have no coherent, consistent, or unified message outside very broad and generic themes and are only held together by pragmatic organization built around gaining and controlling power through dirty, corrupt, and illegal methods and rigged and unfair elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, darkmoon72 said:

While I have numerous criticisms and problems with former Sec. Clinton, I think she did our country a great service by calling out Tulsi Gabbard for what she is.

Gabbard's a fan of Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi.  She belongs to a literal cult, and local Hawai'i papers have covered this extensively.  She hates gay people and Muslims.  She is always scurrying off to FOX News to attack Democrats and the Democratic Party.  Her father was a local Republican politician, until he switched parties and became a DINO.  She has a center-right voting record in a solid left district.  She appeals to what I call the "TYT left" - the extreme, fringe wing of the far left that sounds quite similar to the far right (I'm also looking at you, Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept).  This extremist element is quite good at making excuses for brutal dictators and telling people how terrible the Democrats are, while conveniently leaving out any criticism of Republicans.  With democracy itself (in many countries, not just the US) literally under attack by Vladimir Putin, I think this is a dangerous position to take.  And I think the fact that she is somewhat physically attractive is a factor in how many right-wing men seem to like her.

I think a larger question, apart from the Clinton vs. Gabbard brouhaha, is how do political parties deal with infiltrators?  Should they be ignored? Called out?  What's the right strategy, if you think one of your candidates is a total fake?  I don't have quite as many clear answers for that broader question.  But I am quite happy Hillary shined a light on Tulsi Gabbard - someone had to, and if it was one of the current candidates, they'd risk damaging their own candidacy.  Hillary Clinton doesn't have to worry about that.

 this is why I think Neil liberalism is a mental disorder. Please provide your evidence that any of them are pro-Putin. You do realize she also met with Assad's opposition and modi's opposition. These are facts that you don't acknowledge because they don't fit your narrative. Trump has literally broke the brains of a lot of people and it drives me up the wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, darkmoon72 said:

I disagree.  I think there's a strong chance Gabbard will go third-party and be Jill Stein 2.0 if (when) she loses the Democratic primaries.  Now there's a giant spotlight being shined on that very possibility.  I think the point was to scupper any chance Gabbard had of going third-party, not to stop her from winning the Democratic nomination.  Keep in mind the number of votes for Jill Stein in 2016 was larger than the margin between Clinton and Trump in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the 3 states Clinton needed to win.  I think Hillary would like to avoid a repeat occurrence, and I don't blame her.  While Greens have had some measure of success in other countries, in the United States, Green, as the saying goes, is still an acronym that means "Getting Republicans Elected Every November".

Maybe if the Democrats would stop being a horrible political party and actually didn't spit in the face of their base then they wouldn't have to worry about the Green Party. You can use the same logic to go after the Libertarian party for stealing votes from the Republicans. But it's kind of funny that you assumed that all those people that voted green would vote Democrat automatically, majority of them probably wouldn't have voted if it would have only been a race between Clinton and Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, darkmoon72 said:

Gabbard's a fan of Bashar al-Assad, Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi.

I must honestly ask, is this particular fact WORSE in attitude than many respected and lauded "establishment" leaders in U.S. Government who are fans of Benjamin Netanyahu and the al-Saud and who are the same ideological crowd and mentality of governance and foreign policy priority who have been fans of Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, Chiang Kai-shek, Ferdinand Marcos, Ngo Dinh Diem, Nguyen Van Thieu, Lon Nol, Somsanith Vongkotrattan, Pervez Musharraf, Raza Pahlavi, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Kenan Evren, Hosni Mubarak, Siad Barre, Maputo Sese-Seko, William Tubman, Fulgencio Batista, Francois "Papadoc" Duvalier, Rafael Trujillo, Carlos Castillo Armas and the rest of the Guatemalan Military Junta, Jose Napoleon Duarte, the Samoza Family, Manuel Antonio Noriega (until he was declared "inconvenient" by George H.W. Bush), and Augustin Pinochet, after WW2 (and the obstensible stain of supporting Fascists "passed"), Francisco Franco, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, and Plaek Phibunsongkhram, and, tentatively, but for variously diplomatic reasons, never publicly and officially, Ian Smith, every National Party of South Africa Prime Minister and State President, and the Argentinian Military Junta of 1976-1983. That's quite the rogue's gallery there. Supporting horrid tyrants and/or blatant war criminals and human rights abusers abroad, or being a firm part of a political bloc who has a long history of it, seems to be the case for the vast majority of Federal level U.S. political figures for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr. Insano said:

 this is why I think Neil liberalism is a mental disorder. Please provide your evidence that any of them are pro-Putin. You do realize she also met with Assad's opposition and modi's opposition. These are facts that you don't acknowledge because they don't fit your narrative. Trump has literally broke the brains of a lot of people and it drives me up the wall. 

No, I'm not going to bother engaging with you on this one.  Learn how to disagree without being disagreeable first, and I'll be happy to engage you in polite conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Patine said:

I must honestly ask, is this particular fact WORSE in attitude than many respected and lauded "establishment" leaders in U.S. Government who are fans of Benjamin Netanyahu and the al-Saud and who are the same ideological crowd and mentality of governance and foreign policy priority who have been fans of Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, Chiang Kai-shek, Ferdinand Marcos, Ngo Dinh Diem, Nguyen Van Thieu, Lon Nol, Somsanith Vongkotrattan, Pervez Musharraf, Raza Pahlavi, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Kenan Evren, Hosni Mubarak, Siad Barre, Maputo Sese-Seko, William Tubman, Fulgencio Batista, Francois "Papadoc" Duvalier, Rafael Trujillo, Carlos Castillo Armas and the rest of the Guatemalan Military Junta, Jose Napoleon Duarte, the Samoza Family, Manuel Antonio Noriega (until he was declared "inconvenient" by George H.W. Bush), and Augustin Pinochet, after WW2 (and the obstensible stain of supporting Fascists "passed"), Francisco Franco, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, and Plaek Phibunsongkhram, and, tentatively, but for variously diplomatic reasons, never publicly and officially, Ian Smith, every National Party of South Africa Prime Minister and State President, and the Argentinian Military Junta of 1976-1983. That's quite the rogue's gallery there. Supporting horrid tyrants and/or blatant war criminals and human rights abusers abroad, or being a firm part of a political bloc who has a long history of it, seems to be the case for the vast majority of Federal level U.S. political figures for decades.

I myself never think support for dictators and human rights abusers is appropriate, whether it's the ones you cited, or the ones I cited.  You are correct in that US support for the people you listed was atrocious, and I would never debate you on that point.  I'd like to see more US politicians come out in support of democratic peace theory, rather than different politicians being fine with different sorts of dictators.  But that's about as likely as getting a president who will cut our bloated military budget.

I do think Putin is a somewhat bigger threat than most at this time, because he's actively messing with several democratic countries right now.  I am very much aware the US is no innocent bystander on the world stage, I just don't believe that two wrongs make a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vcczar said:

I don't like Gabbard or Clinton. However, I think it would have been better to just ignore Gabbard and not highlight Gabbard. I think Clinton being the one to attack Gabbard is only going to hurt Democrats that are wishing to prevent interparty strife. Gabbard can barely make the debates, so fortunately she's sort of a minor influence. Clinton shouldn't treat her like she's a major problem or major candidate. This also reinforces my belief that Clinton should just stay out of the 2020 race except maybe in NY and in the Deep South, which are her stronger regions among Democrat support. 

I think there's something to be said for the argument that "sunshine is the best disinfectant".  Remember, Howard Dean also voiced a not-so-kind opinion about Gabbard a few months ago, so it isn't like Hillary is alone in speaking up about her.  I can see why the candidates don't want to go there, but I feel like somebody has to.  Her being "against regime change" is meant to sound fantastic to a certain subset of low-info people on the left who aren't paying close attention to things just yet.  Gabbard is really trying to be Jill Stein 2.0, and I'd like for people on the left to not fall for this phony act twice.  Stein was bad enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I'm pretty sure this is satire, everyone 😛

Yeah it was satire I was just joshing/yanking your chain/ having a laugh/ etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...