It won't happen. It requires something called a backbone.
Democrats are a fucking mess right now. They better figure something out before the GOP can pass amendments and we turn into a theocracy.
-
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
Democrats are a fucking mess right now. They better figure something out before the GOP can pass amendments and we turn into a theocracy.
It's a fine-line between pragmatism and staying true to your beliefs. I'm not advocating that minorities bite-the-bullet over the WWC - because fuck the WWC, y'know? I'm saying that, even with a "normal" GOP candidate, things could be far worse than with Tulsi. I mean how progressive would a Cruz/Kasich ticket be? And a second-term Trump would be many-times worse *shrugs*.
On the other hand, I don't think Tulsi is worth much of anything, so this hypothetical is just a bit... stupid?
I never made that claim. People seem to want to argue about it, so I let them.
Let's start with baby steps. Anybody who isn't willing to condemn Steve Bannon as a white nationalist shouldn't be the Dem nominee.
Because those are the values that America is founded on. I get that many people want to throw the first amendment out inasmuch as it guarantees freedom of religion, but frankly, that's yet another sign of the failure of progressivism to clearly advocate its moral center.
Veritigo_X
Member
It's less the words "Islamic terrorism" and more the right wing stance she takes in encouraging people to use them: the idea that you can't defeat ISIS without saying those words and those that don't are clueless in the fight. Fox News has her on all the time to repeat these points for a reason.
LostMyNarbles
Member
Why do I get the feeling the party's going to be no more unified in 2020 than it was this year. If the far-left liberal side of the party unites around somebody like Gabbard and have Sanders/Warren openly supporting her then it will create division if the rest of the party unites around a more moderate candidate.
excelsiorlef
Member
Tulsi Gabbard is nothing.
She'll emerge as nothing.
She's done nothing of worth but endorse Sanders.
That actually won't be enough in a Primary
She has an extremely homophobic past
Actual ties to the Modi Government
Her voting record is to the right of nearly all the Democratic party.
She's fucking nothing.
She'll emerge as nothing.
She's done nothing of worth but endorse Sanders.
That actually won't be enough in a Primary
She has an extremely homophobic past
Actual ties to the Modi Government
Her voting record is to the right of nearly all the Democratic party.
She's fucking nothing.
It's still likely too early to tell what's going to happen, everyone's still jockeying for position and no real figureheads have come out yet.
Pretty much. If she wants to make a run she actually needs to accomplish something.
whyamihere
Banned
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
excelsiorlef
Member
Honestly I feel like Sanders people touting her forget that they aren't the majority of the party.
Good Job Bob
Member
Considering the vast majority of the party united around Clinton this year before the primary even began, it will be all but impossible for the party to be more united in 2020.
Androidsleeps
Member
The problem with the discussion about radical islam is that there seem to be two loud voices dominating the conversation: The borderline bigoted ignorant voice (alt-right, right-wing populists, etc); and the side that keep refusing to admit there's a serious issue with fundamentalist islamic ideology that harbours dangerous ideas, and seem unwelling to have a much needed serious discussion about the matter (perhaps fearing being lumped in with the first group).
Surely there must be a middle-point where we can soberly address this crisis in a meaningful way and not be drowned by those two voices. Because until we do so, I don't see a way to solve this issue with islamism/jihadism. As someone from the Middle East, I see that the mainstream discourse dominated with these two voices, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that Harris, for instance, may on occasion put his foot in his mouth when talking about Islam. However, he obviously has a clear understanding of the issue and in noway can be compared to Trump.
Labeling any criticism of islam as islamophobia helps no one and in a way validates the claims of actual islamophobes.
whyamihere
Banned
A united party apparently does not matter if you want to win the presidency and Congress.
Abinash117
Member
Some aren't even Democrats.
I assume by more moderate you mean "less willing to compromise with white nationalism." Probably just a typo.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Banking jobs don't seem like the sort of jobs the people who elected him wanted.
And he had nothing to do with this.
excelsiorlef
Member
Tulsi Gabbard is a moderate to conservative Democrat...
Literally anyone else on the roster would be a more liberal option.
whyamihere
Banned
Also just an fyi, most presidents get reelected.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Mediocre ones during times of financial problems almost always do not, however.
Pretty sure Masayoshi was planning that regardless of Trump, he's been really ambitious.
@ballad
Masayoshi and SoftBank are tech. They're not going to be investing in rust belt.
I wonder if Downhome is going to make a thread with "President-elect Donald Trump" as part of the title for this bit of news lol
No, no, no. Anybody who likes Bernie is progressive and anybody who didn't support him is an establishment neoliberal centrist. Did you not get the memo on how those words got redefined? Policy is dead.
whyamihere
Banned
This is true!
LostMyNarbles
Member
Unless I'm missing what you are saying isn't this a typo in itself? I have to assume you are implying that the more moderate candidate is willing to compromise compared to the liberal side of the party, but if that is the case shouldn't it be "More willing to compromise with white nationalism"?
I get that, but she's going to be seen as the a liberal candidate if Sanders and Warren end up supporting her regardless of what her actual voting record shows.
IAmAnAgnostic
Member
Trump claims that it did have to do with him.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806214236053667842
You're saying that Tulsi is the more progressive candidate.
Actually, she's one of the most centrist Democrats in Congress. The only thing that really distinguishes her is that, unlike most of the rest of the House, she was unwilling to condemn Bannon as a white nationalist because he agrees with her on the topic of Islam.
My point is that your description of her as "more progressive" is utterly unmoored from reality. Stop allowing the people who want to prioritize economic issues over the right of people of color to live safely in America to call themselves "progressive."
Trump lies.Trump claims that it did have to do with him.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806214236053667842
From an article two days ago:
SoftBanks Masayoshi Son Chases First Place With Tech Deals
Masayoshi's been gunning on this road for a while.
Patrick Klepek
furiously molesting tim burton
Sounds like the type of thing you tell a leader you're hoping to curry favor with.
Frank the Great
Banned
Wow, nice high horse you got there. Your arrogant argument doesn't work when the opponent is Donald fucking Trump. It's not "moral" to help that white supremacist win reelection because you are butthurt about the Dem nominee.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Oh well, case closed then.
IAmAnAgnostic
Member
How surprising. (I'm being sarcastic) News should pick up on his lie.
whyamihere
Banned
Why the hell would Warren boost Gabbard?
LostMyNarbles
Member
I'm not saying she's progressive, I am just saying she will be perceived as being progressive regardless of her actual stances. It's already clear that a good chunk of Sanders supporters love her despite her centrist voting record. If she runs in 2020 and gets the support of Sanders and Warren (Two people who are very much liberal) that will further bolster the image that she's a liberal candidate without actually being liberal.
My main concern moving into 2020 is that the party is going to be split up between one side that leans very liberal and the centrist section of the party that cannot fully relate to people like Sanders/Warren. I do not actually think Gabbard is a liberal candidate, but if she runs with Sanders supporting her she'll be propped up that way.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Also - there seems to be no evidence indicating that Bernie supporters in the primary voted any less for Clinton than non Trump GOP primary voters voted for Trump. 2018 is when we will get more complete data, but there seems to be a lot of broad indicators that basically a) Trump flipped Obama voters and b) Minorities, especially hispanics, voted at equal or better rates for Trump than Romney.
My fears about the takeaway from this election so far is that
a) the Dem Party is not willing to admit that the Latino vote is not a bloc any more, and that Trump won minorities at least at the same rate as Romney. (Reminder that the first woman, asian, and hispanic presidents are currently far more likely to be Republicans than Democrats based on current candidates.)
b) that the Dem Party has to "choose" between economic justice and social justice <whynotboth.gif>
c) That we (as someone on the campaign) will continue to blame Bernie / Comey / new racism between 2008 and 2016 / anyone except our own incompetence for losing the election.
d) that white women, when push came to shove, voted for Trump over Clinton, and that the coalition has to take that into account.
(All of this is of course contingent on what the voting data has born out, and will need to be double checked once we get more detailed data about 2016 in 2018).
Beats me.
Why would she get Warren's support though. Warren has shown her no love.
Sirpopopop
Member
I actually don't think that would be a disqualifier.
We just elected a guy whom not even evangelicals truly believe is a Christian.
Edit: Anyway, the term I'm going to be using from now on for the Sanders side is "alt-left." Let's be clear, they aren't really as liberal as they portray. How else could you reconcile supporting Tulsi Gabbard?
excelsiorlef
Member
Pigeon is making fun of your assertion that Gabbard is the liberal candidate while anyone else aka the ones who condemned Bannon are the moderates... (even if you don't believe that's the argument you put forward)
So now we're just playing into the flights of fancy and delusion? Gabbard despite being conservative/moderate becomes the liberal and those actual liberals become moderates just because Sanders folliwers say so?
Reality check... this is not Sanders' party, he'll be part of it going forward but he doesn't run it, his supporters aren't the majority...
Some Sanders folk might try to define her as the lib candidate but she won't get that definition from the party base.
Besides who says Warren/Sanders endorse her anyway?
If they're the centrist section of the party, why wouldn't they support a centrist?
Stop playing with fucking terminology. Bernie didn't lose the primary because he was too far left, he lost it because most voters of color didn't trust him even though they generally support socialism. That's not about centrism vs progressivism, that's about Bernie's failures as a candidate.
It doesn't matter if you are a republican. It absolutely matters if you are a democrat. White evangelicals are an absolute bunch of lying, hypocritical shit weasels on this topic.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Also - there seems to be no evidence indicating that Bernie supporters in the primary voted any less for Clinton than non Trump GOP primary voters voted for Trump. 2018 is when we will get more complete data, but there seems to be a lot of broad indicators that basically a) Trump flipped Obama voters and b) Minorities, especially hispanics, voted at equal or better rates for Trump than Romney.
My fears about the takeaway from this election so far is that
a) the Dem Party is not willing to admit that the Latino vote is not a bloc any more, and that Trump won minorities at least at the same rate as Romney. (Reminder that the first woman, asian, and hispanic presidents are currently far more likely to be Republicans than Democrats based on current candidates.)
b) that the Dem Party has to "choose" between economic justice and social justice <whynotboth.gif>
c) That we (as someone on the campaign) will continue to blame Bernie / Comey / new racism between 2008 and 2016 / anyone except our own incompetence for losing the election.
d) that white women, when push came to shove, voted for Trump over Clinton, and that the coalition has to take that into account.
(All of this is of course contingent on what the voting data has born out, and will need to be double checked once we get more detailed data about 2016 in 2018).
There was a wapo article saying exits probably wrong and minorities went less for Trump than Romney, in car can't find it. I agree we should not have to choose between economic and social justice.
I doubt it.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its gonna be so damn easy for CEOs to play this idiot.
VendettaRed07
Member
Warren is boosting no one but herself because she's running
We have to hold him accountable for broken promises. He shouldn't be able to walk back the wall as "rhetoric" or whatever. GHWB wasn't able to walk back no new taxes and neither should Trump.
RastaMentality
Banned
Evangelicals believe Trump is a Christian. Well at least the ones in Texas I've spoken to. Trotting out the Bible at a rally is good enough for a lot of them.
balladofwindfishes
Member
At her age? She'd be 71 in 2020. 79 when she ended her second term, if she had one.
VendettaRed07
Member
She'd only be a few months older than Trump.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
There's never been four two-term presidents in a row though.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I'm also not entirely sure Warren even wants to be president.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Warren looks substantially younger than her age. People have gone so far as to google her age when I mention that she's 66 (7 now).
- Status