Support NeoGAF

[metalslimer]

Why? I don't have a strong opinion either way, because as I've said before, I don't think anyone should be judged until the 2020 primaries, but Gabbard's policy positions are better than a lot of Democrats. The only worrying stuff is what her stance used to be on LGBT rights, but she changed her stance in 2004 and actively campaigned for gay marriage from 2013 onwards, which means her gay marriage timeline is... basically the same as Clinton's. I feel like most of you don't like Gabbard because she spoke out quite strongly against Clinton, which seems somewhat hypocritical when you make fun of 'the Sanders wing' for disliking people on no other basis than speaking out against Sanders.

In a time when Americans Muslim community is most vulnerable the last person we need is Gabbard

 

[Totakeke]

Read it again. That wasn't my main point. The more important part is them realizing at an early age that they have no real influence. That leads to apathy.

How can you say they have no real influence when their actions are being discussed.

Is this like votes in non-swing states don't matter? Or are we saying that the only way to learn actions matter is instant gratification?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Are you saying her Islamophobia isn't worrying?

I think it's... exaggerated, strongly. There's about two things it seems to be based on - the fact that she's issued public statements in support of Modi, and the fact that she said that ISIS' support is a result of the innate appeal of the ideology rather than the endemic poverty of the region.

The first I think is a result of political self-interest. Indian Americans are a pretty big voting bloc in Hawaii and were responsible for Gabbard's enormous upset of the local party favourite; there's a huge link between the Indian community and the BJP; and so it became one of the things Gabbard used to get her launch. It's sort of her equivalent of AIPAC funding pro-Israeli candidates over pro-Palestinian ones, something that an enormous number of Democrats have taken advantage of, and yet those Democrats never seem to get labelled as Islamophobic despite the fact I'd probably rather be a Gujarati Muslim than someone living in the Gaza Strip. It seems grossly morally inconsistent. Nobody calls out Booker for his AIPAC support, for example - I've seen a fair few people in here saying he's a good liberal candidate.

The second I don't think is innately Islamophobic, I just think it's wrong.

Unless there's some other thing I'm aware of (which is very possible, I don't follow Hawaiian politics closely), both of these issues seemly grossly overblown and I can't help but feel it's Clinton supporters desperate to find absolutely anything they can tar her with.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Why? I don't have a strong opinion either way, because as I've said before, I don't think anyone should be judged until the 2020 primaries, but Gabbard's policy positions are better than a lot of Democrats. The only worrying stuff is what her stance used to be on LGBT rights, but she changed her stance in 2004 and actively campaigned for gay marriage from 2013 onwards, which means her gay marriage timeline is... basically the same as Clinton's. I feel like most of you don't like Gabbard because she spoke out quite strongly against Clinton, which seems somewhat hypocritical when you make fun of 'the Sanders wing' for disliking people on no other basis than speaking out against Sanders.

What makes her qualified beyond she endorsement Sanders?

Plead your case.

She has Islamaphobic issues and her rapport with Modi is distressing.

 

[Plinko]

How can you say they have no real influence when their actions are being discussed.

Is this like votes in non-swing states don't matter? Or are we saying that the only way to learn actions matter is instant gratification?

Being discussed by whom? Unless it is republican government officials, not much is going to be done. Democratic elected officials aren't going to fight harder than they currently are because of this. They already are going to be doing what they can.

 

[Totakeke]

Being discussed by whom? Unless it is republican government officials, not much is going to be done. Democratic elected officials aren't going to fight harder than they currently are because of this. They already are going to be doing what they can,

Discussed by people who observe their actions. Every little thing adds up. Who knows who those people are exactly.

You are saying nothing matters unless instant gratification occurs.

 

[whyamihere]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwMmTygjeaY

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: I know you have strong views on this but I want to hear them again in the aftermath of what the president said earlier in the week. What difference would it make if he used the phrase radical Islamic terrorism or extremism?

REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-Hawaii): Look, this is something that I have disagreed with the president on because I think it's important that you identify your enemy, you know who they are, you call them by their name, and you understand the ideology that's driving them.

You know, I understand and appreciate the president's concern which is he doesn't want all Muslims to be cast with the same targeting or the same look at this handful of radical jihadists, and I agree with that. No one wants that to happen, but that's why I think it is important that we make the distinction between the vast majority of Muslims who are practicing their spiritual path, who appreciate and support a pluralistic society and government that's free, versus the small handful of people who like ISIS and al-Qaeda, who believe that unless you abide by their caliphate and their theocracy, you should be killed. And obviously that's something we need to be able to identify in order to defeat this threat.

It's a Republican talking point that does nothing to help our efforts in the Middle East. There's an explicit reason why Obama (and Hillary and Bernie) avoid saying "radical Islamic terrorism" and there's a dumber, shrewder reason why people like Loretta Sanchez and Tulsi Gabbard decided this was a hill to die on.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What makes her qualified beyond she endorsement Sanders?

Plead your case.

I'm not arguing for her. I have absolutely no opinion until 2020 on any candidate and will do my best to keep it that way. I am simply arguing that the hate on her here solely results from the fact she endorsed Sanders, and does not stem from any other credible reason.

She has Islamaphobic issues and her rapport with Modi is distressing.

By the same logic, every single Democrat who has ever taken money from AIPAC or made a public statement in favour of Israel is Islamophobic/has rapport with someone distressing. I actually probably think this is true, and I'd rather support a candidate that has no ties to either, but I think you probably don't think this is true, and I'm interested to see your rationalization.

 

[The Technomancer]

Paul Ryan's office is fucking slammed, you can't get a call through. My friend and I are probably just going to go to his actual "constituents office" and complain in person

 

[Veritigo_X]

I'm not arguing for her. I have absolutely no opinion until 2020 on any candidate and will do my best to keep it that way. I am simply arguing that the hate on her here solely results from the fact she endorsed Sanders, and does not stem from any other credible reason.

People seem cool with Ellison and he was a high profile Sanders supporter. I think you're trying to read into something that isn't there.

 

[Gruco]

Paul Ryan's office is fucking slammed, you can't get a call through. My friend and I are probably just going to go to his actual "constituents office" and complain in person

Loving this. Rally everyone you know in his district

edit - it's kind of a weird situation because the house is where Trump should be able to exert most of his influence, but Ryan is ideological enough to push back, and was quite safe in his primary this year.

 

[Plinko]

Discussed by people who observe their actions. Every little thing adds up. Who knows who those people are exactly.

You are saying nothing matters unless instant gratification occurs.

Not what I said at all. I said it may be dangerous for this age group and lead to apathy. Two drastically different things.

 

[whyamihere]

I am simply arguing that the hate on her here solely results from the fact she endorsed Sanders, and does not stem from any other credible reason.

This is objectively untrue and I believe many here were as annoyed by Tulsi "radical Islamic terrorism" Gabbard who wanted to become Aaron Schock's best friend so they could be moderates together well before Bernie.

In fact, I believe there was a general shock that she endorsed Bernie in the first place considering how much of a hawk she had been. And most here want Ellison as the chair!

 

[Joeytj]

I don't think Gabbard would go for minority leader - she'll be harboring presidential ambitions.

She can't, can she? She was born in America Samoa. Can she run? I guess she can, since McCain was born in a U.S. base in Panama, but if they gave Obama grief for being born in Hawaii...

 

[dramatis]

Vox did a good look at what's going on with Pelosi's potential fight for caucus leadership:

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/15/13637942/house-democrats-leadership-fight

You see the two sides of the party potentially fighting already in this caucus:

There's a problem with challenging Pelosi, which is pretty evident in the fact that she stayed minority leader when 2010 happened and she was no longer speaker. Because there was nobody better.

It's sort of like the situations with the Tory and the Labour party in the UK. Which is that there was nobody better than May in the Tories, and nobody better than Corbyn in the Labour. May didn't even have to properly campaign before all her opponents dropped out and she became PM by default.

Pelosi isn't May obviously, and I don't think she's a pushover either. Vox was right, Keith Ellison's decision to go after DNC chair is pretty dumb if they're looking to oust Pelosi right now lol

So I just noticed that last Tuesday was Danny Tarkanian's 5th (!!) loss.

2004 Nevada State Senate: Lost to Democrat Michael A. Schneider
2006 Secretary of State: Lost to Democrat Ross Miller
2010 U.S. Senate: Lost to Republican Sharron Angle in the primary (came in 3rd)
2012 NV-4: Lost to Democrat Steven Horsford
2016 NV-3: Lost to Democrat Jacky Rosen

This guy has it even worse than Charlie Crist

 

[Deleted member 231381]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwMmTygjeaY



It's a Republican talking point that does nothing to help our efforts in the Middle East. There's an explicit reason why Obama (and Hillary and Bernie) avoid saying "radical Islamic terrorism" and there's a dumber, shrewder reason why people like Loretta Sanchez and Tulsi Gabbard decided this was a hill to die on.

So, I don't think it has any impact either way. Like, all of the things she says there are probably true.

"The vast majority of Muslims who are practicing their spiritual path [true, it is the vast majority who are simply practicing their religious path], who appreciate and support a pluralistic society and government that's free [true, most Muslims support this], versus the small handful of people who like ISIS and al-Qaeda [true, it is a small handful of people who do and it is really important we do notice that it is small], who believe that unless you abide by their caliphate and their theocracy, you should be killed [true, this is what ISIS believes]."

Like, where is the false statement here?

The only one I quibble with is probably this:

"And obviously that's something we need to be able to identify in order to defeat this threat."

I think that's probably not true; it's probably just irrelevant. Doesn't really matter what name we call them - we could call them radical Islamic extremists or we could call them jellywibbles. Doesn't change the nature of your strategy. But while it's a false statement, it doesn't strike me as an Islamophobic one.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm not arguing for her. I have absolutely no opinion until 2020 on any candidate and will do my best to keep it that way. I am simply arguing that the hate on her here solely results from the fact she endorsed Sanders, and does not stem from any other credible reason.

Because right now that's the only reason anyone brings her up as a candidate.

We've explained why we're apprehensive and you've hand waved it away as overblown and biased.

Then when I ask you to make a claim in favor you decline.

So whatever man.

 

[Debirudog]

Why? I don't have a strong opinion either way, because as I've said before, I don't think anyone should be judged until the 2020 primaries, but Gabbard's policy positions are better than a lot of Democrats. The only worrying stuff is what her stance used to be on LGBT rights, but she changed her stance in 2004 and actively campaigned for gay marriage from 2013 onwards, which means her gay marriage timeline is... basically the same as Clinton's. I feel like most of you don't like Gabbard because she spoke out quite strongly against Clinton, which seems somewhat hypocritical when you make fun of 'the Sanders wing' for disliking people on no other basis than speaking out against Sanders.

I don't like her because Gabbard was a vindicitive homophobe whereas Clinton was at worst, a coward (eventhough she did many great things for the LGBT community during the SoS and her foundation helped made AIDs medicine cheaper for everyone). I can forgive Clinton but Tulsi has yet to prove that I can trust her.

Can you stop assuming the worst of Hill-supporters?

 

[RustyNails]

IBy the same logic, every single Democrat who has ever taken money from AIPAC or made a public statement in favour of Israel is Islamophobic/has rapport with someone distressing. I actually probably think this is true, and I'd rather support a candidate that has no ties to either, but I think you probably don't think this is true, and I'm interested to see your rationalization.

Do you know Modi's history with India's Muslims?

 

[Frank the Great]

I don't really care that Tulsi uses the term. I think it's such a silly issue for both sides to harp on.

 

[whyamihere]

So, I don't think it has any impact either way. Like, all of the things she says there are probably true.

"The vast majority of Muslims who are practicing their spiritual path [true, it is the vast majority who are simply practicing their religious path], who appreciate and support a pluralistic society and government that's free [true, most Muslims support this], versus the small handful of people who like ISIS and al-Qaeda [true, it is a small handful of people who do], who believe that unless you abide by their caliphate and their theocracy, you should be killed [true, this is what ISIS believes]."

Like, where is the false statement here?

The only one I quibble with is probably this:

"And obviously that's something we need to be able to identify in order to defeat this threat."

I think that's probably not true; it's probably just irrelevant. Doesn't really matter what name we call them. But while it's a false statement, it doesn't strike me as an Islamophobic one.

Not to play this card, but I don't think you quite understand why the term "radical Islamic terrorism" is a dogwhistle for Islamaphobia in American politics. But if you want to keep saying this is because of Bernie, sure. Whatever.

 

[Totakeke]

Not what I said at all. I said it may be dangerous for this age group and lead to apathy. Two drastically different things.

But you are saying unless they see a direct effect of what they do, they will believe what they did means nothing.

 

[Jeels]

People seem cool with Ellison and he was a high profile Sanders supporter. I think you're trying to read into something that isn't there.

Exactly, and the reason people prefer Ellison is because he has a leg to stand on as far as policy and isn't a divider.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I have a feeling we are going to be very thankful Rand Paul is in the senate.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I don't really care that Tulsi uses the term. I think it's such a silly issue for both sides to harp on.

You only use the term if you want to associate Islam with terrorism.

"Radical" is thrown out with regards to every Muslim so "Radical Islamic Terrorism" is just trying to say "Muslim terrorism!" which you say because you want Muslims to be associated with terrorism.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I have a feeling we are going to be very thankful Rand Paul is in the senate.

Horrifying to say that

 

[Debirudog]

Yes, exactly, people here liked Ellison.

 

[B-Dubs]

I have a feeling we are going to be very thankful Rand Paul is in the senate.

I seriously doubt he's going to do anything. Underneath all the talk and fake action he's just a bog-standard republican.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you know Modi's history with India's Muslims?

Yes. Do you know Israel's history with Palestine's Muslims? Because if you do, and if you understand that the two are roughly equivalent, and you think this is, by itself, a sufficient issue to rule someone out, that rules you out from:

Gabbard
Booker
Warren
Brown
Harris
Duckworth
Franken

and a bunch of others. If you're happy doing that, fine. It leaves you about 7 Democratic senators and 40 Democratic House members (it also leaves you with the independent Senator, a Mr. B. Sanders...)

If you disagree, explain why Modi's treatment of the Gujarati Muslims was significantly worse than Netanyahu's treatment of the Palestianian Muslims. Just as a single example metric, the death tolls are not in your favour.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I seriously doubt he's going to do anything. Underneath all the talk and fake action he's just a bog-standard republican.

I think he has a personal axe to grind and actually stands to gain from seeing Trumpism fail in the party. It's not the direction he wants it to go in at all. He obviously will fall in line on many things but I have a feeling he will surprise us.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Are you Lindsey Graham people going to change your avatars? You're only setting yourselves up for disappointment...

 

[RustyNails]

I don't really care that Tulsi uses the term. I think it's such a silly issue for both sides to harp on.

Actually it's important distinction.

Obama believes that we should not lump in terrorists with moderate Muslims when both read the same book. If we do, we will lose important allies both inside and outside US.

 

[Plinko]

But you are saying unless they see a direct effect of what they do, they will believe what they did means nothing.

Are you at all familiar with teenagers today?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Actually it's important distinction.

Obama believes that we should not lump in terrorists with moderate Muslims when both read the same book. If we do, we will lose important allies both inside and outside US.

That's good, because so does Gabbard!

The vast majority of Muslims who are practicing their spiritual path, who appreciate and support a pluralistic society and government that's free, versus the small handful of people who like ISIS and al-Qaeda.

 

[B-Dubs]

Actually it's important distinction.

Obama believes that we should not lump in terrorists with moderate Muslims when both read the same book. If we do, we will lose important allies both inside and outside US.

We also give groups like ISIS recruitment videos when we do it, they want it to be a holy war. By denying them that we make their lives just a little bit harder.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Are you Lindsey Graham people going to change your avatars? You're only setting yourselves up for disappointment...

I've got nothing left to hope on.

 

[ShironRedshift]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwMmTygjeaY



It's a Republican talking point that does nothing to help our efforts in the Middle East. There's an explicit reason why Obama (and Hillary and Bernie) avoid saying "radical Islamic terrorism" and there's a dumber, shrewder reason why people like Loretta Sanchez and Tulsi Gabbard decided this was a hill to die on.

Indeed. Obama delivered a wonderful rebuke to that in the Presidential Town Hall back in September:
https://youtu.be/vZzV37AqnyE?t=1809

(If the link doesn't jump to the question, skip to 30:09)

It's purely an Islamophobic talking point that does no good to help anyone and if anything actively harms our efforts in the Middle East.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Christ, I don't think I'll be able to handle people stanning for Gabbard.

 

[Totakeke]

Are you at all familiar with teenagers today?

So are we generalizing all teenagers to learn nothing except through instant gratification? You can certainly do that, but this seems to say, hey you're a teenager, you should do stuff only if you can receive instant gratification.

 

[Pyroclastic]

To everyone feeling down/depressed: Get involved. For the first time in my life, I'm calling Senators'/Representatives' offices and letting them know how I feel. That alone has helped tremendously.

Find a local group you care about and start volunteering. Help the less fortunate. Work toward creating a better future for all. It won't seem as bad when you focus on making things better.

Have been a member since last year and finally got in touch with my district's party. despite crippling election and referendum defeats it took until an election of a different country to finally rouse me. kinda sad but oh well!

emailed a local Councillor in my area and have yet to receive a reply though

my party is pretty dead in my area but it would still be nice to see what goes on in local politics, even at such a small level.

 

[Debirudog]

some people like her because she's attractive and totally doesn't have the same damn baggage like Hillary.

 

[Jeels]

some people like her because she's attractive and totally doesn't have the same damn baggage like Hillary.

Man, you can be sure that those of us in the Muslim American community will bail the hell out of the democratic coalition if she is picked. It's great to see Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi Americans united in one political group despite our differences abroad (because ultimately, those divisions don't matter, we're all American here!), but Tulsi represents and reminds of those divisions abroad.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I have no faith in a Gabbard leadership.

She can run for President if she wants but I don't see her being an effective house party leader at all.

 

[RustyNails]

Yes. Do you know Israel's history with Palestine's Muslims? Because if you do, and if you understand that the two are roughly equivalent, and you think this is, by itself, a sufficient issue to rule someone out, that rules you out from:

Gabbard
Booker
Warren
Brown
Harris
Duckworth
Franken

and a bunch of others. If you're happy doing that, fine. It leaves you about 7 Democratic senators and 40 Democratic House members.

If you disagree, explain why support for Modi's treatment of the Gujarati Muslims was significantly worse than Netanyahu's treatment of the Palestianian Muslims. Just as a single example metric, the death tolls are not in your favour.

They are not the same. I'm not talking about the sheer numbers, but the genocide that took place under Modi's watch. The systematic stand-down of state government as the Muslim minorities literally got butchered and burned. Modi was found not complicit but the damage is done.

Also on that note, being chummy with AIPAC is not a problem just like being chummy with Modi isn't a problem. But if you're chummy with AIPAC and also display nerve when talking about Muslims/Palestinians, yeah they normally don't get much play at least not here. I liked Weiner (pre-scandal), but absolutely hated the fact that his name was being floated as a potential President. He had absolutely shitty neocon views with regards to Israel/Palestinians.

Man, you can be sure that those of us in the Muslim American community will bail the hell out of the democratic coalition if she is picked. It's great to see Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi Americans united in one political group despite our differences abroad (because ultimately, those divisions don't matter, we're all American here!), but Tulsi represents and reminds of those divisions abroad.

Yeah, I'm not going to vote for Tulsi no matter what.

That's good, because so does Gabbard!

Ah, speaking both sides of the mouth.

 

[Plinko]

So are we generalizing all teenagers to learn nothing except through instant gratification? You can certainly do that, but this seems to say, hey you're a teenager, you should do stuff only if you can receive instant gratification.

I spend my life around teenagers. Apathy is a dangerous thing, and if they don't see results, it can set in fast. I'm not generalizing all teenagers--just basing it on over a decade of observations.

Have been a member since last year and finally got in touch with my district's party. despite crippling election and referendum defeats it took until an election of a different country to finally rouse me. kinda sad but oh well!

emailed a local Councillor in my area and have yet to receive a reply though

my party is pretty dead in my area but it would still be nice to see what goes on in local politics, even at such a small level.

Glad to hear you're involved. We need more people like you.

 

[Frank the Great]

Actually it's important distinction.

Obama believes that we should not lump in terrorists with moderate Muslims when both read the same book. If we do, we will lose important allies both inside and outside US.

I don't see how saying we need to fight radical Islamic terrorism is lumping anyone in anything.

Like, if I say we need to fight against the influence of racist white voters or "white racism/nationalism", I'm not lumping non-racist whites in with racists.

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get this. I don't really care one way or the other and I don't know anything about Tulsi. I just don't understand the importance that both sides place on this.

 

[Totakeke]

I spend my life around teenagers. Apathy is a dangerous thing, and if they don't see results, it can set in fast. I'm not generalizing all teenagers--just basing it on over a decade of observations.

Sure, this is just a different viewpoint. I expect people to elevate themselves in time of crisis, not sink down to their lowest levels. Is it pointless? Maybe, but trying (and also failing) is the point. We should praise people who attempt that, not asking why they are not fitting more into their social norms.

 

[Joeytj]

JFC, is there any obvious presidential contender on the Democratic side for 2020? Beside a 78 year old Bernie Sanders?

Not even Trump was an unknown. Literally, he's been running for President since the late 80s and The Simpsons predicted he could be President (I know it was a joke, but, shows Trump wasn't exactly a surprise).

But I honestly have a hard time finding an obvious candidate on the Dem side. Maybe Elizabeth Warren, who would be slightly older than Hillary was this year but younger than Bernie.

Amy Klobuchar? Maybe it will end up being an actor or businessman, or even a judge! There aren't even any good Democratic governors left either (God help us if Cuomo or Mcaullife run).

Kathleen Sebelius was a good choice, before Obamacare... and Janet Napolitano is a lesbian, let's not kid ourselves, so that would be hard. Tammy Baldwin would be a better choice in that regard.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Liberal icon Tulsi Gabbard's political career is built on the back of anti-gay stances and Republican money that she inherited from her father in a dynastic fashion and at one point had a shell nonprofit. Liberal Tulsi Gabbard has some disturbing stances on Islam. How did liberal icon Tulsi Gabbard become a liberal icon?

 

[Grief.exe]

Are you Lindsey Graham people going to change your avatars? You're only setting yourselves up for disappointment...

I've got nothing left to hope on.

Hope and reason died on 11/8/2016 at about 8pm eastern.