The 2020 Presidential Election Primary Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not making shit up JL.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/u...i-gabbard.html

No, you are repeating a bunch of made-up shit.

None of that supports what you said:

She's more interested in bashing her own party and progressives than she taking republicans to task. There is no way she can expect party-wide support. She also got the label of republican shill for being friendly with people like Steven Bannon, who floated her name as potential Trump cabinet member.

The altright and conspiracy circles like her. Altight and pro-Kremlin bot armies already astroturf for her. David Duke actively pressured his followers to raise money of her behalf. Tulsi is a strange candidate, but a straight up moderate she is not.


She is just more interested in courting conversatives and moderates than she is progressives and acts puzzled when she doesn't wider support.

She is popular in some of those circles because she is an isolationist. But bloody hell, that doesn't mean that she supports or courts white nationalists.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Gabbard responds to nonsense from the NYT.

Embedded Tweet

Notice how she blasts Trump for the manner in which he abandoned the Kurds while articulating an argument against foreign intervention in the Middle East. Walter should take note on how to support a principle without being and un-nuanced ideologue.

[frank ryan]

No, you are repeating a bunch of made-up shit.

None of that supports what you said:



She is popular in some of those circles because she is an isolationist. But bloody hell, that doesn't mean that she supports or courts white nationalists.

It’s not made up shit. Going on Tucker Carlson all the time is certainly a way in which to court the hard right. Tulsi has made her targets the DNC and other democrats. Her criticizing Trump on Syria is welcomed and somewhat of a first.

[frank ryan]

Gabbard responds to nonsense from the NYT.

Embedded Tweet

Notice how she blasts Trump for the manner in which he abandoned the Kurds while articulating an argument against foreign intervention in the Middle East. Walter should take note on how to support a principle without being and un-nuanced ideologue.

She has been a god-damned Assange apologist. That charge is neither new or unfounded.

[Jeff Lebowski]

She has been a god-damned Assange apologist. That charge is neither new or unfounded.

Frank, show me some hard evidence that she is an Assad apologist. List of quotes, please.

[Walter Sobchak]

She is far too moderate to win a primary. Has little to do with media bias.

For example, refer to the ravings of frank_ryan.

Bump.

[creekster]

It’s not made up shit. Going on Tucker Carlson all the time is certainly a way in which to court the hard right. Tulsi has made her targets the DNC and other democrats. Her criticizing Trump on Syria is welcomed and somewhat of a first.

The conclusions are made up. Just because David Duke chooses to say something nice about you does not mean that you support David Duke. Moreover, Tucker Carlson is conservative and an ideologue, but listening to him, or talking to him, does not mean that you are a white supremacist. Besides, IMO, we need more cross-over dialog, not less. And has it occurred to you that the reason she has attacked the DNC and 'progressives' is because they are spouting foolishness and promoting fools? Please remember that she is trying to win an election, so to beat Sanders and Harris and Warren and ilk she kind of needs to attack them.

Her conduct as to Syria is harder to explain. It all goes back to a semi-secret fact-finding trip she took to Syria and her refusal to condemn Assad afterwards. The only poeple calling her an apologist, AFAIK, are people like Kamala Harris who was pantsed and spanked by Gabbard two debates ago. So let's not over do the whole Syria thing. ANd she is absolutely correct; the effort to cause regime change in Syria should not have involved deployment of troops but, once there, we should not have abandoned the kurds in such a spectacularly traitorous manner. Both of those things can be true, as the clip JL posted above explained.

Here is an article about her and Syria, as I know you do love your links. https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabba...lained-1452141

[BlueK]

Frank, show me some hard evidence that she is an Assad apologist. List of quotes, please.

probably referring to her TV appearances following the gas attacks in Syria where she said she wasn't sure Assad was behind it.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/polit...ntv/index.html

[BlueK]

The conclusions are made up. Just because David Duke chooses to say something nice about you does not mean that you support David Duke. Moreover, Tucker Carlson is conservative and an ideologue, but listening to him, or talking to him, does not mean that you are a white supremacist. Besides, IMO, we need more cross-over dialog, not less. And has it occurred to you that the reason she has attacked the DNC and 'progressives' is because they are spouting foolishness and promoting fools? Please remember that she is trying to win an election, so to beat Sanders and Harris and Warren and ilk she kind of needs to attack them.

Her conduct as to Syria is harder to explain. It all goes back to a semi-secret fact-finding trip she took to Syria and her refusal to condemn Assad afterwards. The only poeple calling her an apologist, AFAIK, are people like Kamala Harris who was pantsed and spanked by Gabbard two debates ago. So let's not over do the whole Syria thing. ANd she is absolutely correct; the effort to cause regime change in Syria should not have involved deployment of troops but, once there, we should not have abandoned the kurds in such a spectacularly traitorous manner. Both of those things can be true, as the clip JL posted above explained.

Here is an article about her and Syria, as I know you do love your links. https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabba...lained-1452141

She seems to say all the right things on her website now and has an explanation for her previous comments about Assad.

This seems like a fair take that addresses some of the weird or unconventional aspects about her:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...didate/597226/

That said, she has no shot at the nomination. Does she have other underlying motives for her improbable run for president? It's certainly possible.

[Jeff Lebowski]

probably referring to her TV appearances following the gas attacks in Syria where she said she wasn't sure Assad was behind it.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/polit...ntv/index.html

Given our track record on claims about WMD in the middle east, should we crucify her for a little skepticism?

Good lord, I am beginning to sound like Walter.

[Walter Sobchak]

Given our track record on claims about WMD in the middle east, should we crucify her for a little skepticism?

Good lord, I am beginning to sound like Walter.

Check yo self!

[creekster]

She seems to say all the right things on her website now and has an explanation for her previous comments about Assad.

This seems like a fair take that addresses some of the weird or unconventional aspects about her:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...didate/597226/

That said, she has no shot at the nomination. Does she have other underlying motives for her improbable run for president? It's certainly possible.

I realize she has no shot at the nomination, which disappoints me. I am desperate to vote for someone other than Trump who doesn't want to undermine or destroy our economy and who is smarter than a box of rocks. Of all the people on the stage the other night, only she and Klobuchar seemed like reasonable, thinking adults who weren't so steeped in party propaganda that they couldn't think for themselves and who were not willing to say almost anything to win. Yet neither one has a chance. But if either was the nominee against Trump I would very gladly vote for her.

I will also add that I like Yang, quite a bit, but in a "he seems like a nice and clever guy" way but not in a "he should be president" way. You think Trump gets rolled by Erdogan or Putin? Putting someone like Yang in a room with those guys would just be mean.

[BlueK]

I realize she has no shot at the nomination, which disappoints me. I am desperate to vote for someone other than Trump who doesn't want to undermine or destroy our economy and who is smarter than a box of rocks. Of all the people on the stage the other night, only she and Klobuchar seemed like reasonable, thinking adults who weren't so steeped in party propaganda that they couldn't think for themselves and who were not willing to say almost anything to win. Yet neither one has a chance. But if either was the nominee against Trump I would very gladly vote for her.

I will also add that I like Yang, quite a bit, but in a "he seems like a nice and clever guy" way but not in a "he should be president" way. You think Trump gets rolled by Erdogan or Putin? Putting someone like Yang in a room with those guys would just be mean.

Agreed. Having someone who shares most of your views as well as someone who can do the job are two different things. That said, the current occupant of the White House is already terrible at his job.

[SeattleUte]

I realize she has no shot at the nomination, which disappoints me. I am desperate to vote for someone other than Trump who doesn't want to undermine or destroy our economy and who is smarter than a box of rocks. Of all the people on the stage the other night, only she and Klobuchar seemed like reasonable, thinking adults who weren't so steeped in party propaganda that they couldn't think for themselves and who were not willing to say almost anything to win. Yet neither one has a chance. But if either was the nominee against Trump I would very gladly vote for her.

I will also add that I like Yang, quite a bit, but in a "he seems like a nice and clever guy" way but not in a "he should be president" way. You think Trump gets rolled by Erdogan or Putin? Putting someone like Yang in a room with those guys would just be mean.

My fifteen year old son and I were listening to an NPR interview with Andrew Yang. I was only kind of listening. My son said, "turn it off, I don't want him." I asked why, and he said, "Social credits?! Really? Does that sound like something you'd want?" What a great feeling when you hear your teenage kids reflect your own values.

Next day (during my run) I was listing to a London Review of Books article about the irony that we all thought the Internet would break China's totalitarianism, but now it's deploying the Internet effectively to make the authoritarian grip more comprehensive and effective. The article talked about how China is imposing a regime of social credits and social demerits.

(Sorry for the brags including the humble brags about running and listening to the London Review of Books.)

[SeattleUte]

I realize she has no shot at the nomination, which disappoints me. I am desperate to vote for someone other than Trump who doesn't want to undermine or destroy our economy and who is smarter than a box of rocks. Of all the people on the stage the other night, only she and Klobuchar seemed like reasonable, thinking adults who weren't so steeped in party propaganda that they couldn't think for themselves and who were not willing to say almost anything to win. Yet neither one has a chance. But if either was the nominee against Trump I would very gladly vote for her.

I will also add that I like Yang, quite a bit, but in a "he seems like a nice and clever guy" way but not in a "he should be president" way. You think Trump gets rolled by Erdogan or Putin? Putting someone like Yang in a room with those guys would just be mean.

My fifteen year old son and I were listening to an NPR interview with Andrew Yang. I was only kind of listening. My son said, "turn it off, I don't want him." I asked why, and he said, "Social credits?! Really? Does that sound like something you'd want?" What a great feeling when you hear your teenage kids reflect your own values.

Next day (during my run) I was listing to a London Review of Books article about the irony that we all thought the Internet would break China's totalitarianism, but now it's deploying the Internet effectively to make the authoritarian grip more comprehensive and effective. The article talked about how China is imposing a regime of social credits and social demerits.

(Sorry for the brags including the humble brags about running and listening to the London Review of Books.)