Got brought up as a hypothetical. It triggered strong reactions.
This is Merkel pretty deliberately throwing a almost entirely do-nothing bone out there. (Germany has never had the same speech protections and such the US has.)
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
VendettaRed07
Member
Yeah.. that's exactly what this is :/
It would always annoy me that some far left liberals are totally fine with Gabbard but not Clinton and it reeks hypocrisy.
I don't think Gabbard is as capable as Obama even. More democrats actually care about civil rights and anti-nationalist tendencies.
And god damn it, Merkel. Just when I respected her as the reasonable voice within Europe.
I don't think Gabbard is as capable as Obama even. More democrats actually care about civil rights and anti-nationalist tendencies.
And god damn it, Merkel. Just when I respected her as the reasonable voice within Europe.
RustyNails
Member
No, we will not let our party get taken over by bigots. This is surrendering. Whats next? Hillary's Stronger Together message worked. She won the popular vote. Lets not throw everyone under the Tulsi bus just to win. She met with Trump for a talk of joining his administration. Trump is a neonazi enabling fascist. She was conspicuously absent from the letter denouncing Bannon, a sole absentee. She voted in favor of Syrian refugee ban with the GOP. Is this who we really want?
Yep, this is so fucking true. I know too many liberal minded people who simply just don't vote due to the candidate only supporting 70% of their views but because candidate for instance supports drone strikes, won't vote for them. Yes drone strikes suck but really? You gonna let a person you 100% don't agree with or even 20% agree with win?. Yes there are different magnitudes of how big a deal each reason might be. Your candidate supports 90% of you views but they believe you should die/be imprisoned, that would be a big deal breaker but do you really think that one extremist view would be supported by the rest of the party that by its nature doesn't support that view. The president can't do anything by themselves. You can check an extremist democrat, your not going to check an extremist republican. This is at least as matters stand now.
Edit: this is just said as a hypothetical instance. I am totally opposed to ever letting this become a possibility just to win and tulsi knows that shit don't fly with dem voters.
Oh, I agree. Tulsi sucks. Big time. No doubts.
But in a hypothetical Trump v Tulsi battle, Tulsi would be the better choice. And saying you wouldn't vote if Tulsi is the nominee is just saying you a) would rather Trump won, and b) don't see that whilst both are astonishingly bad, they're not equally as bad as each-other.
metalslimer
Member
Nope fuck that. Her sole qualification was that she was a big Bernie supporter and has really shown nothing that would indicate she is a good leader for the democratic party.
That being said, I would have to hold my nose and vote for her only because even more people would be hurt with Trump winning.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Yeah, all of those questions are what right wing people asked themselves before they voted Trump. We can either do the same thing as them or not. If you do the former, you lose the ability to argue with right wing people on this moral ground. You cannot tell people who held their nose and voted Trump that they should feel bad about their vote. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Actually, it's not. It's drawing a moral line and expecting the Democratic Party to meet it.
Go tell the "progressives" and white working-class Democrats that freedom of religion is non-negotiable instead of telling the people who will be victimized that they'll just have to suck it up in pursuit of progressive policies for white men.
There's a reason why I said "look at a 2008/2016" primary map. I'm not talking about general election. It's not 'people' who have to care about Obama. It's that black people care a lot about Obama. The south is worth quite a good deal in delegates.
"Someone different" is also not qualification enough. For Gabbard to make it to the general, she has to get through primary. And she won't, because her record and her history means she won't make it past phase 1. That's without even considering her opponents.
You're not thinking straight, Vendetta. Drop the subject and revisit two years from now.
We keep thinking Trump is some special unique thing to America - to be honest, America's one of the last multi-cultural western countries to have to deal with the rise of the xenophobic / nationalistic part of their right wing (Thanks Obama! Alas he cannot stop the tide). It's been more or less baked into most of the European countries (many of which we fawn over)
Also, last couple of pages remind me of the quote "Liberals fall in love, Conservatives fall in line". I don't disagree with kirblar / pigeon / other comments about Gabbard, but if she won the primary (I would vote for someone else in the primary, admittedly..not a giant fan of Gabbard), I'd absolutely vote for her versus say a Rubio. Can't risk another GWB / Trump / etc causing far more targeted harm.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
This is what I'm talking about. It's valid to take this stance, but recognize that if I change 'Trump' to 'Hillary' in this context, you're basically quoting Republicans when talking to moderates.
I see the logic in fighting fire with fire, but doing this means you cannot criticize moderates who voted Trump. You agree with their logic.
If the Democratic Party's conclusion from 2016 is that they need to embrace islamophobia, I don't see that I have any choice except for voting for an actual progressive party, even if it means I have to start one.
Like I said, Trump's presidency is a great opportunity to identify which people have moral principles, and which people acted like they have moral principles because they perceived a societal expectation to do so.
Morals and ideals are fine for the Primary! Let me be clear, I'm not saying I like Tulsi, I don't (where does all this Tulsi talk come from?).
But - General Election, Trump v Tulsi. That is not drawing the Democratic Party a moral line, that's choosing between two awful scenarios, with one slightly less worse.
And, to clarify, I initially replied to this:
Not voting for a Dem is voting for a Republican. To the point where you may as well vote Republican (they may actually be better than Tulsi, so...).
Something I was thinking about as I was writing.
And, in fact, if you change Tulsi to Hillary, it's another reason why the Dems lost this election. It's just one of those arguments. VendettaRed07
Member
Agreed. I just really hope that the democrats establish themselves and figure out a way to win and regain trust so voters don't lose their minds next cycle and we end up with a divisive candidate
balladofwindfishes
Member
So I guess it's basically just the Canadians and the vikings who can manage to not go insane?
Does the cold weather just make people not crazy?
Regardless, as said by others, tulsi is a terrible hypothetical example because she does not fit the mojority democratic core values and in the current form of the party would not make it through the primaries but hey she's a good argument to use against open primaries which would help candidates like her.
They're more heavily urbanized. (because everyone's freezing their ass off)
Yesterday I was stumbling around and I found that Kos at DailyKos is backing Ilyse Hogue for DNC Chair over Keith Ellison (though Kos emphasizes Ellison is a personal hero of his).
Anyone care to do a rundown of the platforms by the various candidates running for DNC chair? We can do some comparisons, although I imagine most of them are going to be pretty similar.
That's a pretty good organizing background. She posted her platform pretty early on.
Anyone care to do a rundown of the platforms by the various candidates running for DNC chair? We can do some comparisons, although I imagine most of them are going to be pretty similar.
So would this be a good reason for people in America to contact their local DNC office and push for her? Would such a thing do any good?
Trump sold all shares in companies in June, spokesman says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...419d44-bbcf-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...419d44-bbcf-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html
bangbang i'm a timpani
Banned
yea bullshit
VendettaRed07
Member
I totally believe this !
Based on the shit Merkel's pulling - I'm starting to worry that the entire Western world might go all in on the islamaphobia thing. :-/
That said, if Ellison wins the DNC chair, at least we know that won't be an issue.
(well, that and prepare for Bernie or Warren 2020, cuz you better believe the primary voting schedule for states will get massively changed to aid Bernie/Warren if he becomes DNC chair). In terms of the Dems, I'm not genuinely worried about the Dems embracing islamaphobia any more than greater western society will. If the US as a whole embraces it more than it has, then it turns into a fight that is outside the two party system and aimed at the general populace and current politicians in office (aka, civil rights in the 50s and 60s as well as gay marriage in the 2000s).EDIT: Dang it, you added more
Which one could argue is a consequence of using the "name and shame" philosophy that has been pervasive in modern social media, no?
Also, Tulsi's not getting nominated, lol. If the Bernie / Warren camp pushes a nomination candidate, I think, barring unforeseen circumstances, it would be Warren.
Big Baybee
Member
Trump coming to Baton Rouge. Ugh.
There will be a live stream of the Nate Silver panel discussion at Columbia University today at 5:30pm.
https://events.columbia.edu/cumc/event/showEventMore.rdo;jsessionid=2EB714A131A1553243070C83C82D5907
Stream will be at this link when it's live.
http://datascience.columbia.edu/live
https://events.columbia.edu/cumc/event/showEventMore.rdo;jsessionid=2EB714A131A1553243070C83C82D5907
Stream will be at this link when it's live.
http://datascience.columbia.edu/live
VendettaRed07
Member
I hope they don't change the schedule.. because I'd say the schedule already favors Bernie/Warren
Bernie not winning Iowa killed him. It didn't matter how much it was by but if he won Iowa, and then New Hampshire, there would have been a long ass week till Nevada where the media would go into melt down with the ITS HAPPENING! BERNMENTUM IS REAL, HILLARY CHOKING AGAIN! that could have changed everything. Maybe have been able to swing Nevada. And Bernie could have gone into the next phase winning 3/4 of the first 4 states instead of just one
Bernie not winning Iowa killed him. It didn't matter how much it was by but if he won Iowa, and then New Hampshire, there would have been a long ass week till Nevada where the media would go into melt down with the ITS HAPPENING! BERNMENTUM IS REAL, HILLARY CHOKING AGAIN! that could have changed everything. Maybe have been able to swing Nevada. And Bernie could have gone into the next phase winning 3/4 of the first 4 states instead of just one
RustyNails
Member
I understand the thought. But if the Dems calculus, primaries and elections means that they can get more WWC voters than they lose voters like me by nominating people like Tulsi, I'm ok by being left out. I'll join back when someone more unifying like Obama or Hillary show up. Until then, I'll be just working at the local level.
I did say compare the platforms first, didn't I? lol
There's a fight every four years about the schedule, lol. Like freaking clockwork. I don't know if it'll actually get changed - but I know there's always grumbling about it. (GOP goes through same thing as well).
True - had Bernie won Iowa, would have changed the narrative dramatically, and the chance that the Clinton camp panics thinking this is Obama 2.0 and makes a mistake (which they apparently were close to before Obama calmed them down according to Politico) gets higher. But Devine was also over his head I think, so there is that issue going forward.
VendettaRed07
Member
We made the same sort of mistake in the 90s going so far on "tough on crime" and dog whistling to Dixiecrats. They did not have to do that or go nearly as far as they did in order to win. We should be aiming to have presidents we can be truly proud of in retrospect instead of conceding on social issues that are too controversial in a given period of time for better perceived guarantees on short term wins
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I know the Iowa caucus is hated here but I think it's an important place for candidates to have to prove their organization (since the caucus demands it) and the candidate's ability to go out and do some retail politics.
I could see a really bad Trump presidency potentially causing the same thing to happen again - Dem leadership believing that they have a moral imperative to win at all costs to stop a potential Trump second term (and the harm it would inflict); and that ends justify the means.
That's why it's important for voters of color, religious minorities, and all allies to organize and present a united front that rejects hatred now, instead of spending their time laying the groundwork for the Democrats to nominate an islamophobic candidate as the "lesser of two evils."
balladofwindfishes
Member
Aren't Greenpeace the ones who denied a poor area rice because it was a GMO?
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Who's involved with them?
I like the Post subtly suggesting that Trump needed to liquidate his stocks because he didn't have the cash for those campaign donations. Because a man allegedly worth $10b surely doesn't have a few million in cash lying around.
You can present the united front now while understanding that if your front is rejected, that you may find yourself in a position to pick between the lesser of two evils. I fear that one of the unfortunate truths of 2016 may be that the GOP found themselves in that position, voted along party lines, and now finds themselves in control of a large chunk of the country. That's a hard pill to swallow. However...
Was texting a GOP counterpart about this a few minutes ago, and I think the interesting test is 2018. Regardless of whether it actually matters to voters, basically, we see it as this: In 2017 the Dems will choose a path forward (concentration on Economic Justice, concentration on Social Justice, or concentration on both equally seems to be the current options) and campaign on it in 2018. 2018 elections will happen, and if the Dems do better in the elections, they'll go forward with that path (even if they do better because it's a mid-term election and the party with the presidency tends to get shellacked in those midterms). If the Dems do worse (because the electoral map in the Senate highly favors the GOP in 2018, for instance), they'll reject that path and pick the opposite path. This is the downside of focusing on outcome rather than process. Which may end up being a long term consequence of the 2016 election for the GOP - by uniting under the "lesser of two evils" (in a GOP voters' mind); are they risking longer-term party stress / disunity.
Tell the Busters that, not me. I'm just learning the lesson from them.
If true, he's pissed off a massive company in the military-industrial complex, as well as affecting contractor's jobs.
Of course Trump made the number up. That's what he always does, he lies.
So basically ___ or bust huh, dat purity test!
Still don't understand what's so bad about Tulsi. She has the only rational response to the Syrian conflict.
And if you are talking about her so-called "islamaphobia", let me remind you that the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" is used by plenty of leftists including Bill Maher, Sam Harris and heck even Jimmy Kimmel. The morality of using said phrase is another topic, but to simply say it does not make one an islamaphobe, lol.
Unfortunately they can't, given he's the president. Even though Trump is fuckfaces his words and actions are important and can, and will, affect the world around us. Which is a big part of the reason we're in real deep right now.
Have you heard Bill Maher talk about islam, or religion in general? He's not exactly a poster child for tolerance in this area.
I am actually astonished by all the people who apparently have no moral center.
Yes, I will refuse to vote for a candidate that advocates islamophobia. I told people to do that with Donald Trump. It would be astonishingly hypocritical of me to not do the same.
The problem with the Busters was not that they had a moral line. It's that it was a stupid moral line that privileged their concerns over the right of people of color and religious minorities to live in peace in America.
So I guess I'm not surprised they're advocating the exact same thing now.
RustyNails
Member
Sam Harris and Bill Maher are pieces of shit when it comes to Islam. New Atheists are just as worse as alt-right on Islam. At least they can unite there.
Good Job Bob
Member
Hillary Clinton: I'll say the words 'radical Islamism'
I'm not a fan of Tulsi, but the idea that her comments on "radical Islamic terrorism" would immediately disqualify her among the Dem base in a primary is pretty out there I think.
I'm not a fan of Tulsi, but the idea that her comments on "radical Islamic terrorism" would immediately disqualify her among the Dem base in a primary is pretty out there I think.
gutter_trash
Banned
why would a Liberal Secularist go out of their way to defend Conservative religious beliefs when that Religious Conservatism negates Liberal values?
- Status