2020 US Presidential Nominees

[Ned_Flanders]

Could anyone think of a better endorsement for Gabbard, than having her the defiant underdog against Hillary?

I don't think there is anything that could solidify and grow her base more than that.


Why would Hillary comment at all? Knowing that everything she says supports those she opposes?

Genuinely have no idea what issue is between the two, but pretty obv something is there

Hillary should just STFU. Former leaders and candidates never add to the debate with this shit

 

[CM86]

She is a good candidate. But going after Hillary? Well that sends people on both sides into a mouth foaming frenzy. You see the memes but also look in the comments on her Twitter posts. Hillary supporter has unleashed on her.

She wants the Russia interference idea to stay at the front of people’s minds. Not sure if she’s doing it because she plans to run or she wants to keep up the pretext that 2016 wasn’t her fault.

I don't know.

From what I understand, she has some support from the 'right', and Trump supporters. And even some far right (same with Yang).

She just hasn't been that popular.

The majority view seems to be that she just doesn't interest them, but they don't know why.
Well... now they know why... it's because 'Killary' has been using the 'deep state' to trick people into being against her, because she is against war.


This will take her from the sidelines to the front.
If she wins, she better thank Clinton.

 

[its free real estate]

If Clinton attacks Bernie next you can bet she’s in the running.

Genuinely have no idea what issue is between the two, but pretty obv something is there

Gabbard supported Sanders in 2016 and was one of the few prominent Democrats who called out the dodgy behaviour of the likes of Wasserman-Schultz.

 

[WA ROO]

If Clinton attacks Bernie next you can bet she’s in the running.

All she would have to do is release the bank transfers

 

[Ned_Flanders]

If Clinton attacks Bernie next you can bet she’s in the running.

Gabbard supported Sanders in 2016 and was one of the few prominent Democrats who called out the dodgy behaviour of the likes of Wasserman-Schultz.

It's deeper than that - both of their tweets indicate it's personal

When that happens (like with Abbott and Turnbull) it's never productive

 

[bfff]

Lmao everybody says they're against war. That's the most cliche campaign policy of all time and there's never once been a President that's walked the walk once they got in office. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

She walks the walk already.

Both sponsored by Rep. Gabbard:

H.Res.411 This resolution declares that if the President initiates wars without prior congressional declarations, such action shall constitute impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors," which shall cause the House of Representatives to vote articles of impeachment. In addition, the resolution prohibits the President from making the United States a co-belligerent in an ongoing war without a congressional declaration

H.R.608 Stop Arming Terrorists Act This bill prohibits the use of federal agency funds to provide covered assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or he government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or individual

 

[The Speaker]

Lmao everybody says they're against war. That's the most cliche campaign policy of all time and there's never once been a President that's walked the walk once they got in office. If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

???

Much of the history of the United States has been based around not getting involved in foreign wars

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

???

Much of the history of the United States has been based around not getting involved in foreign wars

Either you're a 200 year old man who doesn't remember anything after 1945 or this is a really stupid post.

 

[The Speaker]

Either you're a 200 year old man who doesn't remember anything after 1945 or this is a really stupid post.

How long has the United States had presidents for?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

She walks the walk already.

Both sponsored by Rep. Gabbard:

H.Res.411 This resolution declares that if the President initiates wars without prior congressional declarations, such action shall constitute impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors," which shall cause the House of Representatives to vote articles of impeachment. In addition, the resolution prohibits the President from making the United States a co-belligerent in an ongoing war without a congressional declaration

H.R.608 Stop Arming Terrorists Act This bill prohibits the use of federal agency funds to provide covered assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating with, or adherents to such groups; or he government of any country that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered assistance to such a group or individual

You're easily impressed my man

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

How long has the United States had presidents for?

Are you implying that the isolationism of pre-Cold War United States is more relevant than the last 70 odd years of intervention and realpolitik?

 

[The Speaker]

Are you implying that the isolationism of pre-Cold War United States is more relevant than the last 70 odd years of intervention and realpolitik?

No, I'm saying you've made an absolute statement about "every President", so you're either wrong or you need to walk it back and clarify which time period you're talking about. Either way, it cannot be considered an eternal absolute, which means it also cannot be expected to be true forevermore either.

 

[bfff]

I don't know.

From what I understand, she has some support from the 'right', and Trump supporters. And even some far right (same with Yang).

She just hasn't been that popular.

The majority view seems to be that she just doesn't interest them, but they don't know why.
Well... now they know why... it's because 'Killary' has been using the 'deep state' to trick people into being against her, because she is against war.


This will take her from the sidelines to the front.
If she wins, she better thank Clinton.

I agree that she isn’t that popular. But, she has been subject to a concerted smear campaign.

 

[RobbieK]

I agree that she isn’t that popular. But, she has been subject to a concerted smear campaign.

That combination of facts is a bit weird. I mean, why would you waste time smearing someone who is basically only polling 2%, if that? If people didn't want others to be thinking about Tulsi Gabbard the best thing they could do would be to just not talk about her.

 

[bfff]

That combination of facts is a bit weird. I mean, why would you waste time smearing someone who is basically only polling 2%, if that? If people didn't want others to be thinking about Tulsi Gabbard the best thing they could do would be to just not talk about her.

If they (DNC) didn’t get out in front she could have been a juggernaut. A strong progressive young women with an agenda similar to Bernie Sanders. If they didn’t fear her they would have left it alone.

 

[RobbieK]

If they (DNC) didn’t get out in front she could have been a juggernaut. A strong progressive young women with an agenda similar to Bernie Sanders. If they didn’t fear her they would have left it alone.

She has never been close to becoming a juggernaught.

 

[bfff]

She has never been close to becoming a juggernaught.

No she hasn't. So why the constant smears?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

No, I'm saying you've made an absolute statement about "every President", so you're either wrong or you need to walk it back and clarify which time period you're talking about. Either way, it cannot be considered an eternal absolute, which means it also cannot be expected to be true forevermore either.

Oh right, you're pretending that pre-civil war presidents are just as relevant and are making a point about absolutism.

You are very intelligent.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No she hasn't. So why the constant smears?

dude its a campaign, all candidates are smearing each other (although politely because dem voters hate intra party sniping as Castro found out).

warren on lack of funding, biden on his age, harris on her prosecutorial record, Beig on his race issues as mayor, and on and on

this is the point of a primary campaign. If they cannot handle the polite PC smears of their fellow democrats, how will they be able to handle it when Trump comes at them with his full attack?

 

[Crow54]

This is a very good post about the “fight” between Hillary and Gabbard. It’s long, but worth the read.

“The important news today was a very public fight between candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Tulsi Gabbard and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but the story is not important because it says anything about the Democratic presidential candidates for 2020. It is important because it is a textbook example of precisely what the Senate Intelligence Committee warned about in their October 8 report on Russia's use of social media to undermine American democracy ...

... But somehow this extraordinary non-story is getting way more oxygen than the fact that today top officials in the Department of Housing and Urban Development admitted they broke the law to withhold money from Puerto Rico intended to help it rebuild after Hurricane Maria. It is getting more oxygen than the fact that outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry is ignoring a congressional subpoena for documents about the Ukraine scandal because he considers the impeachment illegitimate ...

... The Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that the IRA did not stop after 2016. Instead, it ramped up its activities. Their goal is to keep Americans arguing and confused, despite the fact that polls show that we are overwhelmingly in agreement with each other on even hot button issues like abortion, gun rights, and taxation. As bots and trolls push extreme positions, the news skews. So, for example, today we have a manufactured fight between two non-candidates, rather than a focus on the ethnic cleansing of our former allies in Syria, apparently suffering from war crimes like the use of chemical weapons.”

 

[its free real estate]

Oh right, you're pretending that pre-civil war presidents are just as relevant and are making a point about absolutism.

You are very intelligent.

There has always been a strong anti-imperialism /anti-war streak in the US.

 

[Steinfreo]

This is a really good article explaining the difference between Bernie and Warren.

Is This the Future Liberals Want?

In a 2020 campaign against Donald Trump, a bet on Elizabeth Warren is a risky wager on its own terms. But over the next twenty years, a turn toward progressive technocracy is not a bet at all — it’s an unconditional surrender to class dealignment.

www.jacobinmag.com

tldr, its explaining that bernie represents the working class while Warren represents a managerial/suburban professional class that is advocating for the working class.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

This is a really good article explaining the difference between Bernie and Warren.

Is This the Future Liberals Want?

In a 2020 campaign against Donald Trump, a bet on Elizabeth Warren is a risky wager on its own terms. But over the next twenty years, a turn toward progressive technocracy is not a bet at all — it’s an unconditional surrender to class dealignment.

www.jacobinmag.com

tldr, its explaining that bernie represents the working class while Warren represents and managerial/suburbian professional class that is advocating for the working class.

The difference imo is Bernie has at least said his medicare for all plan will be funded by tax increases. Warren keeps squibbing the question

 

[shniko11]

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[The Speaker]

Oh right, you're pretending that pre-civil war presidents are just as relevant and are making a point about absolutism.

You are very intelligent.

I make no claim either way as to my intelligence, but you appear to be avoiding the point - presumably because it takes away the strength of your original claim.