It is currently Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:15 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:32 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3786
EAllusion wrote:
Anyway, it is entirely possible that Sanders had different comments for the candidate that was absolutely zero threat to his candidacy compared to the one that was..

Absolutely zero? How do you know? She is a woman and a lot of Bernie supporters like her. Gabbard could take away a lot of votes from Sanders.

EAllusion wrote:
You said that while dismissing one possibility and taken the other as a basis for form judgement. That's not being agnostic on the matter.

Well, you have the Gabbard quote and you have old videos of Sanders saying that women can win. There is no way to know who is telling the truth, but the evidence does suggest that Sanders is telling the truth.

EAllusion wrote:
If you trust politfact, just do a search on Sanders and instances in which he was marked as lying. There are lots..

Lying? Do you know the difference between a false statement and a lie?

EAllusion wrote:
There are examples of her being sketchy for political purposes, but this ain't it.

Okay. So she pretends to be against the military industrial complex, but she really likes voting for defence spending. She does play a lot of politics.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:46 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Absolutely zero? How do you know?

She's not a strong candidate for a Democratic presidential race because Democrats don't particularly like her nor did she display any of the underlying reasons one might suppose a candidate could break out.

Quote:
She is a woman and a lot of Bernie supporters like her. Gabbard could take away a lot of votes from Sanders.

What with her having a net negative among Democrats of around -40 and polling low enough to basically be not statically different from zero, it sure sounds reasonable to conclude that she was a threat on par with Elizabeth Warren. The Bernie supporters who like Tulsi tend to like Bernie more or are alt-right adjacent types who aren't reliable Democratic voters at all. It's a niche of a niche group you are talking about here.

Quote:
Well, you have the Gabbard quote

That's meaningless? That Bernie Sanders said one thing to Tulsi Gabbard and another to Warren wouldn't be be surprising. That's not even a set of facts in want of explanation.

Quote:
and you have old videos of Sanders saying that women can win. There is no way to know who is telling the truth, but the evidence does suggest that Sanders is telling the truth.

It is, factually, both the case that a woman could win the presidency and that women face unique roadblocks due to gender biases that might make it more difficult for them to win. I, EAllusion, am telling both of those things to you right now and I am not contradicting myself in doing so.

With that out of the way, you are waffling back and forth in your comments, depending on what is convenient to say on a sentence by sentence basis, where the effect is Warren has to prove she is telling to truth or she is a liar, but Sanders is given every benefit of the doubt on the flimsiest pretext.

Quote:
Lying? Do you know the difference between a false statement and a lie?

So, on the one hand, some of those politifact "fact checks" are as ridiculous as the Warren one you quoted. In other instances, Sanders clearly was BSisng. I'm not sure you read any, though.

Quote:
Okay. So she pretends to be against the military industrial complex, but she really likes voting for defence spending. She does play a lot of politics.

This is a really facile way to understand how politics work. Senators routinely vote for things they disagree with in mass spending bills. That's the nature of political compromise. You might be surprised that even Bernie Sanders does that a lot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 21476
Location: Koloburbia
DoubtingThomas wrote:
Gabbard could take away a lot of votes from Sanders.

Gabbard seems to be the alternate Kremlin Candidate.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Tulsi Gabbard seems to have one legitimate position and zero other convictions. Her experiences in the military seem to have instilled a sincere belief the civilian leadership is far too reckless and casual when making decisions that send young people in uniform into harm's way. Her central, immoveable plank is built on reversing American adventurism abroad.

And that's about it. I don't see much out of her campaign that explains what legitimate international policy looks like under a Gabbard administration other than it won't start wars. I haven't seen anything on the domestic side that looks like it was developed out of having a vision and commitment to it. Her non-military intervention position seems to be the only native-to-her position. Everything else is borrowed or half-baked. Or both.

I think it's in that light that we see her appear to be "the Kremlin candidate" given the Russians are very supportive of candidates who want the US to step off the international stage. Russia has a vision that sees the return of a Russian global influence counter to western liberal democracies. And they are doing a decent job pushing it. That includes news articles and statements supportive of politicians such as Tulsi Gabbard who are extreme in their views towards American isolationism. They like Bernie for many reasons, but that is also one of them. And while Trump's economic entanglements with eastern European and west Asian oligarchs are probably at the root of his Russian support, his isolationist views regarding American politics and lack of an international policy didn't hurt his appeal that direction, either.

Tulsi isn't in the pocket of the Kremlin. She's just useful to them. So are others who have those same traits.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:19 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
DoubtingThomas wrote:
If Sanders doesn't win the nomination I will probably just stay home on election day.

Why?

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:18 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
I don’t think your description of Gabbard’s foreign policy is accurate at all Honor. She has repeatedly supported military interventionism. She’s quite bellicose, in fact. It’s just that her preferences are orthogonal to the usual disputes in Washington D.C. As a rule of thumb, if it hurts Muslims she likes it, but if it doesn’t, she doesn’t.

She appears to be the “Kremlin candidate” because she has repeatedly sided with Putin in disputes with the US and met with Russian cut outs. This includes her favoring Russia’s bombing of civilians protesting Asad, which doesn’t sound very pacifist of her. Russia has returned the favor by having their online influence operation bolster her. The pro Putin part of the alt-right love her.

Having a Modi style authoritarian with Sanders’ views on economics in domestic politics is weird, so I get why she confounds people, but she’s also almost no threat to Sanders chances in the Democratic primary.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:53 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3786
EAllusion wrote:
but she’s also almost no threat to Sanders chances in the Democratic primary.


Quote:
The Bernie supporters who like Tulsi tend to like Bernie more


According to the most recent poll Gabbard is at 5% in NH, and that is enough to cost Sanders the nomination.

EAllusion wrote:
that women face unique roadblocks due to gender biases that might make it more difficult for them to win.


That was not the accusation.

EAllusion wrote:
Sanders clearly was BSisng.


Can you give me some examples?

EAllusion wrote:
where the effect is Warren has to prove she is telling


Yes. But in your opinion what is more likely?

EAllusion wrote:
Senators routinely vote for things they disagree with in mass spending bills. That's the nature of political compromise. You might be surprised that even Bernie Sanders does that a lot.


"Then there’s foreign policy. Warren has never been particularly progressive on foreign policy, or even shown much interest in it at all"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rogressive


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Her public statements on military intervention make the most sense when seen as coming from someone proud of the US military but deeply opposed to putting uniformed troops into harm's way. She seems happy to use drones and tomahawks missiles to bomb targets but not to escalate wars. It's less a strategy and more a deeply held opinion that civilian leadership is reckless with the lives of military personnel. That's not the same as being a pacifist. It's what one might expect from a medic who was involved in watching soldiers die for bad causes.

When I think of a Modi-like figure I envision someone who leverages national religious identity to enact anti-democratic measures that widen gulfs between minority and majority members of society playing with a strong, authoritarian hand. I imagine a Pence presidency to be more like a Modi. Being Hindu doesn't make her a Modi. In the US it would be a hindrance to Modi-like aspirations given her religious views are those of a tiny minority with almost no political power in the US.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:31 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
What makes her like Modi is that she is fan of Modi and sympathizes with the views of Modi and his supporters. She has defended Modi’s authoritarian actions and has similar nationalist sympathies domestically. In particular, she has an issue with Muslims and tends to favor policies that negatively target them. This ranges from being Trumpish (or Modiish) on Muslim immigration to a foreign policy outlook that seems shaped by opposition to Muslims.

Her support for an opposition to various military interventions line up almost perfectly with the question of “Which side are the Muslims predominantly on?” She wants the US out of supporting Saudi Arabia, but she favors strident military support for the most right-wing elements of Israel. She’s been an apologist for chemical weapons attacks on civil opposition to Asad and an apologist for Sisi’s dictatorial crackdown on democratic opposition from Muslim groups.

She has favored boots on the ground in the context of “war on terror” counter measures, describing herself as a hawk in that regard. The war in terror, of course, is pregnant with implication of who that refers to. It's not international white supremacists.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:45 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
See:

https://theweek.com/articles/855766/tul ... o-peacenik

https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi ... ign-islam/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
EAllusion,

I'm not a Gabbard fan, and don't favor her in the election by a long shot. Were the universe to collapse into the insane improbable of 2020 becoming a contest between her and Trump I don't think there is an option on the table I wouldn't consider other than voting for either of them.

I say that to simply point out I don't think saying her stated opposition to interventionist war equates to be a "peacenik" or pacifist. My point was that her entire foreign policy "strategy" is to not send US troops into wars, and end American interventionism. Russia likes that message, just as they like any candidate advocating for the US to step aside off the world stage and make room for others.

As to the claim she is anti-Islam, I guess your first link said this,

All of this has fueled suspicion that Gabbard's foreign policy is driven by Islamophobia. There may be some truth to that, given that she supported the SAFE Act, which would have subjected Syrian and Iraqi Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS to extreme vetting, even before Trump got elected and implemented it. At the same time, she pushed a resolution to make it easier for Christians and Yazidis who were ISIS victims to come to the United States.

But even if she isn't motivated by anti-Muslim animus, the fact is that a foreign policy that elevates America's narrow national interest above any broader concerns will inevitably lead to unsavory realpolitik alliances, regardless of whether it is pro- or anti-war. If "The Blob" — as the bipartisan interventionist foreign policy establishment is sarcastically called — has a tendency to exaggerate the threat posed to the international order by regimes that don't play by America's rules in order to justify overthrowing them, Gabbard-style anti-interventionist nationalists have a tendency to downplay the threat that odious regimes who play ball with America pose for their own people in order to enlist them.


The idea being she seems to dislike Islam and blames it while turning a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East is certainly evident but it hardly supports the claim her view of when to use military force or not comes down to whether or not we are killing Muslims. I thought your second link made a better case for her position being primarily patriotic naïvété of a kind one encounters among veterans. Her views seem non-strategic, mostly informed by having seen the effects of sending people to die for bad causes but lacking any other fundamental vision or informed understanding of the role the US plays in global dynamics. Not unlike our current President. As the second link described her:

In a perceptive 2017 article for Jacobin, Branko Marcetic wrote that Gabbard’s worldview “is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans.”

Yeah. Sounds about right.

As to being a "Modi-styled authoritarian", I don't see it. Whether or not she admires him, the entire idea of her being modeled on Modi is impossible to entertain. A Mike Pence presidency could very well be a Modi-styled affront to democracy. A Gabbard administration? How? Liking Modi doesn't equate to being like Modi. And being a member of a poorly understood, minority religion in a country with a pretty strong religious majority that has tied national identity with religious identity already into a coalition of the sorts authoritarians might use but only if they are on brand...I don't know.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:54 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
honorentheos wrote:

The idea being she seems to dislike Islam and blames it while turning a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East is certainly evident but it hardly supports the claim her view of when to use military force or not comes down to whether or not we are killing Muslims.


It's not simply that she turns a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East. She sides with authoritarians when those authoritarians are suppressing Islamic political groups and against them when they are not or are Islamist regimes themselves. And she doesn't just side with them, she tends to be a rather fierce advocate on their behalf, even engaging in apologetics for mass murder. You can look at a conflict theater, ask yourself "which side has the the most Islamist political activism?" and you'll have your answer as to which side Tulsi is taking. It'll probably be the other one. I say probably while not knowing a single exception, but I'm open to the possibility this is more a general rule than universally the case.

And Tulsi isn't anti-interventionist. She has supported interventions, just not the ones that align with the neo-conish views typical of hawks within D.C. She likes the War on Terror, but doesn't like the US's current alliance framework for prosecuting it. Her goal isn't to get out. It's to fight from a different base.

Quote:
As to being a "Modi-styled authoritarian", I don't see it. Whether or not she admires him, the entire idea of her being modeled on Modi is impossible to entertain.



"Modeled on" is too strong of phrasing. "Akin to" is more accurate. Her combination of views is very unusual for a US politician, but coheres nicely with Modi's politics. This is true from the nationalism to the Islamophobic themes to even economic policy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:21 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3786
EAllusion wrote:
What with her having a net negative among Democrats of around -40 and polling low enough to basically be not statically different from zero, it sure sounds reasonable to conclude that she was a threat on par with Elizabeth Warren. The Bernie supporters who like Tulsi tend to like Bernie more or are alt-right adjacent types who aren't reliable Democratic voters at all. It's a niche of a niche group you are talking about here.


According to the New York Times, "The popularity of Mr. Yang and Ms. Gabbard in New Hampshire among young people, libertarians, disaffected Democrats and independent voters poses a potential threat to Mr. Sanders in the state’s crucial Feb. 11 primary — a contest that, for Mr. Sanders, is close to a must-win."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/p ... bbard.html

In the most recent NH poll Gabbard is at 5%, Sanders 23%, and Buttigieg 18% with a margin of error of +/- 3.8%. With 3.8% Sanders could be at 19.2% and Buttigieg at 21.8%, and Gabbard at 8.8%.

EAllusion wrote:
Sanders is given every benefit of the doubt on the flimsiest pretext.


Let's give Warren the benefit of the doubt. Say Sanders was mad and said, "women ca't win". Sanders is a human being and he is not perfect, so it is not hard to imagine that he made an inappropriate comment on the moment. If that is the case, why did Warren make a penis move? Warren din't have to reveal his comment weeks before Iowa. What Sanders said (allegedly) wasn't that bad because Sanders is probably more feminist than Elizabeth Warren and his voting record is what really matters. Warren didn't have to make him look bad, we all say things we are not suppose to say. So it is still dirty politics, even if the allegation is true.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:51 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
DoubtingThomas wrote:
According to the New York Times, "The popularity of Mr. Yang and Ms. Gabbard in New Hampshire among young people, libertarians, disaffected Democrats and independent voters poses a potential threat to Mr. Sanders in the state’s crucial Feb. 11 primary — a contest that, for Mr. Sanders, is close to a must-win."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/p ... bbard.html


Ah yes, because of Tulsi, the socialist Bernie Sanders is going to lose the key libertarian demographic in the nationwide Democratic primary to Gabbard. Truly a massive blow. Combining Yang and Gabbard into an ur-candidate to make a point is fun.

Gabbard pulls very few votes, and of those she does, a significant % are people who say they are uninterested in voting for other Democrats. Aside from a smattering of support, she's primarily the candidate of the alt-right sympathetic part of the Democratic voting bloc, which is a super niche thing.

In a sufficiently close election, marginal candidates can swing elections because when margins are tiny even small differences matter. But that doesn't mean Gabbard is a threat to Sanders like Warren is. Warren is a major Democratic candidate, one that exists in Sanders' lane of left-wing economic activitism, who has the ability to both split Sanders votes significantly and outright win over him. To equate this with Gabbard who might possibly be a Ralph Nader to Sanders' Gore in a really tight election is not thinking it through. It is entirely reasonable, and correct, for Sanders to see one person as a threat and the other not.

That all aside, you're not even citing the numbers of your own linked article correctly. That doesn't matter in this case, but it is part of a pattern.

Quote:
Let's give Warren the benefit of the doubt. Say Sanders was mad and said, "women ca't win". Sanders is a human being and he is not perfect, so it is not hard to imagine that he made an inappropriate comment on the moment. If that is the case, why did Warren make a penis move? Warren din't have to reveal his comment weeks before Iowa.


She wasn't the one who broke the story. It was anonymously leaked. There were accusations that she planted the story recently to knife Sanders, something you've apparently absorbed as gospel, but that was never verified.

Subsequent reporting strongly suggests the story came from one of the reporters who heard Warren talk about it a year ago and corroborated by others who also heard it:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/san ... secretary/

Quote:
What Sanders said (allegedly) wasn't that bad because Sanders is probably more feminist than Elizabeth Warren and his voting record is what really matters. Warren didn't have to make him look bad, we all say things we are not suppose to say. So it is still dirty politics, even if the allegation is true.


This is some real cult stuff right here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
EAllusion wrote:
honorentheos wrote:

The idea being she seems to dislike Islam and blames it while turning a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East is certainly evident but it hardly supports the claim her view of when to use military force or not comes down to whether or not we are killing Muslims.


It's not simply that she turns a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East. She sides with authoritarians when those authoritarians are suppressing Islamic political groups and against them when they are not or are Islamist regimes themselves. And she doesn't just side with them, she tends to be a rather fierce advocate on their behalf, even engaging in apologetics for mass murder. You can look at a conflict theater, ask yourself "which side has the the most Islamist political activism?" and you'll have your answer as to which side Tulsi is taking. It'll probably be the other one. I say probably while not knowing a single exception, but I'm open to the possibility this is more a general rule than universally the case.

My general rule in reading Gabbard is if the cause puts uniformed US soldiers on the ground for reasons that aren't obviously defending the US - not our economic interests but the US, itself - then she is largely against it. Does she favor using bombs to fight the war on terror? Sure. Does she support the use of Special Forces to conduct targeted missions? Sure. I don't believe I said she was a pacifist. But I think your use of non-interventionist is too broad. Her views seem pretty obvious - don't start wars.

Here's an exchange from The Nation from a couple of years ago -

JC: One will often hear neocons and liberal interventionists (surely by now a distinction without a difference) warn against over-learning the lessons of Iraq. Which is kind of an odd concern. In your years in Congress have you seen any evidence that those lessons have been actually been learned by the political and media establishments in the first place?

TG: No. Based on our country’s continued counterproductive regime-change war policies, it is clear that leaders on both sides of the aisle have not learned the painful lessons of decades of interventionist regime-change wars, most recently in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. The result has been costly for the American people, in human lives and taxpayer dollars, and devastating for the people of these countries, where countless lives have been lost, humanitarian crises created, with refugees’ being forced from their homes, and the utter destruction of their way of life.

I recently fought to strip a provision from the 2018 defense-authorization bill that essentially authorizes the secretaries of state and defense to go to war with Iran. Only 60 members of Congress supported my amendment.

While many members of Congress and the Trump administration rail against Iran and are calling for US troops to remain in Syria indefinitely to counter Iran’s influence and presence there, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that the United States regime-change war in Syria has greatly strengthened Iran’s presence and influence in that country. In other words, the Syrian government of Assad has become much more dependent upon and beholden to Iran and Russia, due to our efforts to overthrow their government. This obviously does not serve the national interests of the United States or Israel.

Furthermore, Iran’s presence and influence in Iraq was zero before we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Now Iran is the dominant power in Iraq.

The problem is that our leaders are either extremely shortsighted, or they’re consciously working against the interests of the United States and our allies. The undeniable truth is that the direct result of our overthrowing the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and our efforts to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, has greatly increased the presence and influence of Russia and Iran, as well as Al Qaeda and other jihadists, in all three of those countries.

In short, we have spent trillions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives in order to help those we consider to be our enemies or adversaries. Who needs enemies when we have leaders like this?


The most consistent aspect of her statements is avoiding sending troops into fights. As I said earlier, I don't think her positions beyond that are deeply held or natively her own.

Quote:
Quote:
As to being a "Modi-styled authoritarian", I don't see it. Whether or not she admires him, the entire idea of her being modeled on Modi is impossible to entertain.


"Modeled on" is too strong of phrasing. "Akin to" is more accurate. Her combination of views is very unusual for a US politician, but coheres nicely with Modi's politics. This is true from the nationalism to the Islamophobic themes to even economic policy.

Modi is a religious nationalist. It's his distinguishing feature among authoritarian leaders. Mike Pence and his ilk are nationalists who are Islamophobic, too. There is a wide range of options to compare her to in the US, Modi not being a good one unless you think she's pro-Hindu and that's what makes her akin to Modi. I don't see that. But even if it were true, a Hindu in the US can't be both akin to Modi and a successful politicians because they don't have the Hindu base Modi has in India. There are plenty of American nationalist islamaphobes to chose from if that is your criteria.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:22 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3786
EAllusion wrote:
This is some real cult stuff right here.


Look, Sanders is a progressive, I am not. I do not agree with him on many things and I am not a die hard supporter, I would prefer Yang, but Yang has no chance of winning.

EAllusion wrote:
But that doesn't mean Gabbard is a threat to Sanders like Warren is.


I didn't say that! But you said, "absolutely zero threat" and I responded to your claim. Sanders cannot afford to lose in NH, so yes Gabbard can cost him the nomination all because of NH. Not saying it is likely, but it is possible.

The New York Times article I gave you, "Interviews with voters at campaign events, as well as the polls themselves, suggest that a sizable share of the New Hampshire voters backing Mr. Yang and Ms. Gabbard are the very sorts of voters who propelled Mr. Sanders to victory here in 2016."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/p ... bbard.html

EAllusion wrote:
She wasn't the one who broke the story. It was anonymously leaked.


Good Lord Jesus! According to Reuters "In its report on the meeting, CNN cited four people with knowledge of it, including two with whom Warren spoke about it soon after and another two who were familiar with what happened at the meeting." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1ZD06K. Notice how it does't say something like "another two were present at the meeting". The Sanders campaign said the anonymous sources were not in the meeting. According to the Hill, "Sanders vehemently denies the story, which came from four anonymous sources close to Warren." You think Warren wasn't expecting the story to leak?

EAllusion, I think you are the cult follower, I thought you were smarter than that. I am disappointed.

EAllusion wrote:
There were accusations that she planted the story recently to knife Sanders, something you've apparently absorbed as gospel, but that was never verified.


Warren is not a stupid person, she knew exactly what was going to happen.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:41 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
DoubtingThomas wrote:

I didn't say that! But you said, "absolutely zero threat" and I responded to your claim. Sanders cannot afford to lose in NH, so yes Gabbard can cost him the nomination all because of NH. Not saying it is likely, but it is possible.


On the chance you have an autism spectrum disorder, "absolutely zero threat" doesn't mean literally a zero probability of having an impact on the election where she will not garner even one vote that might have otherwise gone to Sanders. It means her threat is extremely minimal such that Sanders responding differently to Gabbard than Warren wouldn't be surprising on that ground alone.

Quote:
Good Lord Jesus! According to Reuters "In its report on the meeting, CNN cited four people with knowledge of it, including two with whom Warren spoke about it soon after and another two who were familiar with what happened at the meeting." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1ZD06K. Notice how it does't say something like "another two were present at the meeting". The Sanders campaign said the anonymous sources were not in the meeting. According to the Hill, "Sanders vehemently denies the story, which came from four anonymous sources close to Warren." You think Warren wasn't expecting the story to leak?


Well, it didn't leak until a year or so later. If by "leak" you mean told someone, then yeah, Warren leaked the story. There's nothing wrong with that. If by "leak" you mean as, you already stated, that she released the story a few weeks before the Iowa primary with the intent to harm Sanders on the eve of an election, there's no evidence that happened and some evidence to think it did not.

Pick a position and go with it.

EAllusion wrote:
Warren is not a stupid person, she knew exactly what was going to happen.


I see were back on the give Sanders every benefit of the doubt while making the worst assumptions about Warren's motives train again.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Hey DT, I'm curious what you think about this -

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/election ... spartandhp

INDIANOLA, Iowa (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden accused rival Bernie Sanders's campaign on Saturday of disseminating a "doctored" video edited to falsely appear to show the former vice president supporting cutting Social Security, and called on the Sanders campaign to disown it.

In response, Sanders' campaign refused to back down and continued to cite the video as evidence that Biden wants to limit the government-run retirement and disability program.

...

Biden accused "Bernie's people" of putting out a "doctored video" that was edited to appear to show him agreeing with former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan that Social Security should be privatized.

"It's simply a lie, that video is a lie," Biden said. "I'm looking for his campaign to come forward and disown it but they haven't done it yet."

In response, Sanders' campaign manager Faiz Shakir doubled down on the attack, saying in a statement, "Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security -- he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions."

At the center of the back-and-forth is a newsletter the Sanders campaign distributed recently that pointed to a speech Biden gave to the Brookings Institution think tank in 2018. Biden is quoted as saying, "Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What's the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare."

However, the video of the speech makes clear Biden was actually mocking Ryan for the proposal. He leans into the microphone and says in a deep, menacing stage whisper: "Social Security and Medicare." Biden then goes on to say – in remarks not disseminated by the Sanders campaign – that the tax code needs to be reformed so enough revenue is raised to save Social Security and Medicare.

PolitiFact, an independent fact-checker, rated the Sanders newsletter as false.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:09 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 17275
honorentheos wrote:
Hey DT, I'm curious what you think about this -

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/election ... spartandhp

INDIANOLA, Iowa (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden accused rival Bernie Sanders's campaign on Saturday of disseminating a "doctored" video edited to falsely appear to show the former vice president supporting cutting Social Security, and called on the Sanders campaign to disown it.

In response, Sanders' campaign refused to back down and continued to cite the video as evidence that Biden wants to limit the government-run retirement and disability program.

...

Biden accused "Bernie's people" of putting out a "doctored video" that was edited to appear to show him agreeing with former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan that Social Security should be privatized.

"It's simply a lie, that video is a lie," Biden said. "I'm looking for his campaign to come forward and disown it but they haven't done it yet."

In response, Sanders' campaign manager Faiz Shakir doubled down on the attack, saying in a statement, "Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security -- he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions."

At the center of the back-and-forth is a newsletter the Sanders campaign distributed recently that pointed to a speech Biden gave to the Brookings Institution think tank in 2018. Biden is quoted as saying, "Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What's the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare."

However, the video of the speech makes clear Biden was actually mocking Ryan for the proposal. He leans into the microphone and says in a deep, menacing stage whisper: "Social Security and Medicare." Biden then goes on to say – in remarks not disseminated by the Sanders campaign – that the tax code needs to be reformed so enough revenue is raised to save Social Security and Medicare.

PolitiFact, an independent fact-checker, rated the Sanders newsletter as false.


Hmm. On the one hand, the video isn't "doctored" like the Biden campaign is saying. Rather, it is out of context to present a misleading point. That's a tier beneath doctoring in malfeasance. On the other hand, the point the Sanders campaign is making in a misleading way is absolutely correct. Biden has pushed to cut entitlements for a long time and there are multiple examples of him on video bragging about that.

Pinocchios all around for our political hell-world.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10179
Question for you, EAllusion. Maybe off topic but since it's come up in this thread I'll ask it here. Given your Libertarian views, what are your thoughts on managing entitlement programs going forward? You've mentioned a few writers for Reason who reflect your views but I don't recall who they were or if there is a general consistent idea in that regard. Being a pragmatic leftish centrist, I generally view the role of government to be providing democratic access to opportunities, offering help to lift someone up whose down on their luck or takes a stumble but with the intent of getting them going on their own again. I don't think privatization of Social Security is viable. The logistical problems of taking it private alone is too high a hurdle, plus it would essentially mandate citizens contributing to stocks and mutual funds which is problematic, IMO. But short of a program that turned the Fed into an investment company, there still needs to be some way of infusing more into the system than just increasing contributions and reducing payouts.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Tulsi Gabbard
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:13 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am
Posts: 3786
EAllusion wrote:
On the chance you have an autism spectrum disorder, "absolutely zero threat" doesn't mean literally a zero probability of having an impact on the election where she will not garner even one vote that might have otherwise gone to Sanders. It means her threat is extremely minimal such that Sanders responding differently to Gabbard than Warren wouldn't be surprising on that ground alone.


It is not extremely minimal in NH (a must win state for Sanders). At the time Sanders din't know Gabbard wasn't going to rise in the polls.

EAllusion wrote:
she released the story a few weeks before the Iowa primary with the intent to harm Sanders on the eve of an election, there's no evidence that happened and some evidence to think it did not.


So what is your evidence?

EAllusion wrote:
I see were back on the give Sanders every benefit of the doubt while making the worst assumptions about Warren's motives train again.


No, we are giving Warren the benefit of the doubt by assuming that Sanders made a sexist comment. But when Warren was asked, "Did Sanders say.... " She should have said "No comment" "or "I don't recall" or "Sanders is not a sexist". Warren was trying to score political points. Sanders is probably the most feminist candidate and Warren should have defended him. She did the opposite and falsely accused Sanders of calling her a liar.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group