• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Diablos

Member
royalan said:
Do it.

For the moral victory if NOTHING else.

For crying out loud Dems have got to stop taking it on the chin at some point.
Click to expand...
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.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
pigeon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Good Job Bob said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

gutter_trash said:
why would a Liberal Secularist go out of their way to defend Conservative religious beliefs when that Religious Conservatism negates Liberal values?
Click to expand...

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.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Good Job Bob said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
L

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.
 
E

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.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
LostMyNarbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

excelsiorlef said:
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
Click to expand...

Pretty much. If she wants to make a run she actually needs to accomplish something.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much it.
 
G

Good Job Bob

Member
LostMyNarbles said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A

Androidsleeps

Member
RustyNails said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
IAmAnAgnostic

IAmAnAgnostic

Member
Thoughts?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806214078465245185

I313fvk.png
 
P

pigeon

Banned
LostMyNarbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

I assume by more moderate you mean "less willing to compromise with white nationalism." Probably just a typo.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
LostMyNarbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tulsi Gabbard is a moderate to conservative Democrat...

Literally anyone else on the roster would be a more liberal option.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
Tulsi Gabbard is a moderate to conservative Democrat...

Literally anyone else on the roster would be a more liberal option.
Click to expand...

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.
 
L

LostMyNarbles

Member
pigeon said:
I assume by more moderate you mean "less willing to compromise with white nationalism." Probably just a typo.
Click to expand...
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"?

excelsiorlef said:
Tulsi Gabbard is a moderate to conservative Democrat...

Literally anyone else on the roster would be a more liberal option.
Click to expand...
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.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
LostMyNarbles said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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."
 
D

dramatis

Member
IAmAnAgnostic said:
Trump claims that it did have to do with him.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806214236053667842

K4hAvoJ.png
Click to expand...
Trump lies.

From an article two days ago:
SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son Chases First Place With Tech Deals
TOKYO — Masayoshi Son is a Japanese billionaire who wants to control the way your car talks to street lamps.

The 59-year-old technology investor — a grandson of South Korean immigrants who has amassed one of Japan’s largest personal fortunes by pursuing grand, Silicon Valley-inspired visions — is best known outside his homeland for buying the American mobile phone carrier Sprint for $21.6 billion in 2013.

Now, after a short flirtation with retirement, Mr. Son has embarked on two of the most ambitious projects of his career. He is making his largest acquisition yet: the British microchip designer ARM Holdings, whose products are at the core of most of the world’s smartphones. And he is collaborating with Saudi Arabia’s ruling family to create what could become the world’s largest technology investment fund.

His goal is nothing less than to change how the material world works — and to turn his company, the SoftBank Group, into the future’s most important technology business. Specifically, he is planning for a day when millions of everyday objects run on chips and tiny computers that talk to one another — allowing street lamps, for example, to save power by switching themselves off when cars are not around.
Click to expand...
Masayoshi's been gunning on this road for a while.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
pigeon said:
I am actually astonished by all the people who apparently have no moral center.
Click to expand...

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.
 
L

LostMyNarbles

Member
pigeon said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
pigeon said:
Tell the Busters that, not me. I'm just learning the lesson from them.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right. :p

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).
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
whyamihere said:
Why the hell would Warren boost Gabbard?
Click to expand...

Beats me.

LostMyNarbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would she get Warren's support though. Warren has shown her no love.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
sphagnum said:
Tulsi Gabbard won't be elected anyway because she's Hindu.
Click to expand...

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?
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
LostMyNarbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
LostMyNarbles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Sirpopopop said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Cybit said:
Two wrongs don't make a right. :p

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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
Sirpopopop said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tales of Graces f Remastered - Reviews Thread
23
1K
Paltheos replied
Bringing Dune Awakening to the Xbox Series S will be a "challenge", according to Funcom chief product officer
News 2 3
100
5K
mdkirby replied
First time you realized Japanese devs were GOAT?
Drama Retro Game Dev 2 3
118
4K
Spukc replied
Modern Game Devs Suck at Community Support
2
60
3K
Reizo Ryuu replied
Players are now less "accepting" that games will be fixed, say Paradox, after "underestimating" the reaction to Cities: Skylines 2's performance woes
Game Dev
47
2K
Quantum253 replied
Top Bottom