Relevant democrats like...Howard Dean. Yeah it's a real mystery why we don't see more talk about him.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans
- Thread starter Sokrates
- Start date
Relevant democrats like...Howard Dean. Yeah it's a real mystery why we don't see more talk about him.
We don't need to waste time with candidates who are 10 years behind the progressive curve. Why should we even waste our time?
"Basic progressive standards" are defined by the majority of the party, not the fringe left. The majority of the party wants banking and environmental regulations, non-discrimination clauses from top to bottom, socialized medicine, higher wages, higher taxes, no racists, no sexists, no frivolous starting of wars, and open condemnation of human rights abuses.
"Basic progressive standards" will never embrace being chummy with Assad, Xi, Putin, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro, Duterte, or Un, even if we have to work with these people for goods, services, and basic security. "Basic progressive standards" would never have pulled what the Trump admin did with Khashoggi. "Basic progressive standards" tried to ease tensions with Iran and allow them to have an energy-based nuclear program.
Last edited:
I mean Joe Biden, who's about 20 years behind the "progressive curve". He's out in the press doing the old "Millenials ruin everything" routine.
Well said. Never have been a fan of Greenwald. He just wants to burn everyone. His work with Snowden will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.
The Party is not trying to make Joe Biden happen. Only Joe Biden is trying to make Joe Biden happen. Even Obama's is backing another horse.
Have you seen the overall sentiment toward Biden here lately?
The people on the outside regularly telling the Democratic party what they should do, oddly don't seem to have a finger on the pulse of Democratic voters at all.
The ResetEra community has no power in the institutions of the Democratic party. Does this need to be said?
"The party is trying to make Beto happen" seems like a more accurate read because he gets inexplicably good press coverage and has a similar "votes with the GOP" record as Gabbard, but probably a difference between him and her is that she's officially announced she's running while he hasn't.
And which "institutions of the Democratic party" are trying to make Biden a thing right now?
They are interested in Beto also. It's not a secret who the approved candidates are: Biden, Harris, Booker, and possibly Warren if she doesn't say anything too mean about corporations for the next year. O'Rourke's utility is waning now that the left has figured out who he is. CAP and similar groups were hoping they could pass him off as a unifying Obama-like figure to would-be Sanders voters. Now that that plan looks dead, O'Rourke's other credentials don't look so strong.
What county wouldn't hit back after a massive attack like 9/11? A Democrat president refused to commit to Syria and the dictator/Russian side is near total victory there now. Iraq war had high support throughout the US population at launch based on false evidence of WMDs.
seems like gabbard's utility would wane as the left figured out who she is but it sure seems like an awful lot of red rose twitter is carrying water for her ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
but again as many people have noted, you haven't really demonstrated that ~the establishment~ is pushing biden, like, at all.
It is insane to castrate the party for imperialism with one hand while supporting Gabbard with the other
Gabbard is nobody. Some credulous Sanders supporters got mixed up with her because she took a risk in endorsing him, and because she occasionally said some refreshingly anti-war things. But in no way is she a serious contender for the presidency, with any base of support capable of making a difference. I don't think "Rose Twitter" (meaning DSA/Jacobin twitter) is primarily carrying water for her. Most of them are joining the liberals in criticizing her for generally correct reasons. From what I've seen, the people who are most interested in Gabbard are more like the Movement for a People's Party types, some Green party voters, Jimmy Dore, etc.
It's a little early to write her off completely. Remember, people were eager and willing to write off Trump when he announced he intended to run, and I'm still convinced Tulsi would have an easy time defeating Trump.
Hillary too was against gay marriage until she changed her mind. Tulsi changed her mind. Its like politicians can change their minds.
If you would like to share your findings with the rest of the class here? Saying that people are 'willfully obtuse' is a pretty big statement and assumption.
All I've known Greenwald too be is a respected, openly gay journalist. He has received numerous awards as well.
Anyways, unless the polls are exaggerated - from what I have seen as anecdotal evidence, more often than not whether its posts here, other online outlets, or discussions with people in RL, people that identity as Democrat do seem to support some sort of 'occupation' or the whole 'doing something™'. Whether that's representative of the whole base, I have no idea, that's why its anecdotal. Throughout the entire Syrian Civil War, that's practically all I heard were people trying to goad Obama to "do something" about Assad, which unfortunately turned into turning a blind eye to numerous countries (and our own) A. Arming people and B. Aerial bombing; both which drastically exacerbated the violence in that country.
As far as I'm concerned, any country that America touches turns into an awful disaster that can't be taken back. Our children and their grand children will literally be paying for these epic failures. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; it needs to stop. My biggest fear is a slime like Bolton in the Trump's Whitehouse of Incompetents finding a phony cassus belli to attack Iran.
If you would like to share your findings with the rest of the class here? Saying that people are 'willfully obtuse' is a pretty big statement and assumption.
All I've known Greenwald too be is a respected, openly gay journalist. He has received numerous awards as well.
Anyways, unless the polls are exaggerated - from what I have seen as anecdotal evidence, more often than not whether its posts here, other online outlets, or discussions with people in RL, people that identity as Democrat do seem to support some sort of 'occupation' or the whole 'doing something™'. Whether that's representative of the whole base, I have no idea, that's why its anecdotal. Throughout the entire Syrian Civil War, that's practically all I heard were people trying to goad Obama to "do something" about Assad, which unfortunately turned into turning a blind eye to numerous countries (and our own) A. Arming people and B. Aerial bombing; both which drastically exacerbated the violence in that country.
As far as I'm concerned, any country that America touches turns into an awful disaster that can't be taken back. Our children and their grand children will literally be paying for these epic failures. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; it needs to stop. My biggest fear is a slime like Bolton in the Trump's Whitehouse of Incompetents finding a phony cassus belli to attack Iran.
I'll be surprised if she's still in the race when the first televised debate airs.
Does Feinstein count as an institution?
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/feinstein-biden-2020/index.html
Gabbard was still hard anti-LGBT well after ~The Neoliberal Centrist Establishment~ had come around to civil unions*, so this whole "Um actually, Clinton/Obama/Whomever also opposed Gay Marriage" doesn't really fly.
*Which, again, to be clear, was a shitty thing, but it was at least in the vicinity of progress and Gabbard couldn't even get on that bandwagon.
Yes, find someone in the Dem party that was this way in the early 2000s:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfile-tulsi-gabbard-lgbt/index.html
Hillary was the first First Lady to march in a gay pride parade in 2000 while progressive icon Gabbard was referring to us as homosexual extremists.
Nope.
Peoples issues with Tulsi are that she hates gay people and publicly trashes them. Beto has a fantastic LGBT record.
And that she trashed Obama for not being tough enough on the war on terror. Beto never once did that.
And that Tulsi goes on Fox News VERY often to trash Obama during the Obama White House years. Beto never did that.
Not even close to comparable. People don't rail against Tulsi because of her votes, but because what beliefs she espouses and what she says and does publicly.
The only people who lie Tulsi are people that, like her, hate gays people. Because anyone supportive of the LGBT community would never ever back someone like her.
So no, she has no chance.
If she somehow gets the nomination, most of those people will hold their noses and vote for her.
Beto has also publicly embraced BLM and environmental conservation, and has publicly shit on Saudi Arabia.
Someone who hates gays people and uses anti-gay slurs (she stated in 2016 her opposition to homosexuality due to her religious beliefs has not changed at all, she just doesn't believe in voting her personal morals) is not winning a Democratic primary so the general is useless to even talk about
People are so obsessed with convincing themselves Beto is centrist they are refusing to even acknowledge reality at this point.
Comparing Beto to a raving right wing loon who made her name trashing Obama on Fox News before endorsing Bernie and masquerading as a liberal is just fucking crazy to try to do with a straight face.
But he voted for 9 percent of Republican policies compared to 7 percent for the rest of the 'crats so fuck him /s
At one point I was a big fan of Greenwald. His focus on transparency in government drew me in and I read everything he wrote.
However, over time his hypocrisy began to reveal itself. How could someone so steadfastly opposed to the unaccountable national security
state initially support the Iraq war, do a complete 180, and then later on defend a politician that is an ally of Assad and a proponent of intervention while conveniently ignoring the more egregious abuses committed by states like Russia.
I'd also like to point out that Greenwald is a libertarian and was a big fan of Ron Paul. A man who has strong ties to white nationalism and called the Russian sanctions as a result of Crimea an act of war (look it up if you don't believe me).
Meanwhile, Ron's son Rand is voting against measures designed to punish Russia and hand delivering messages from Trump to Moscow. And furthermore Greenwald is content to be a regular tv guest of another white nationalist in Tucker Carlson.
All of this leads me to ask just what is Greenwald is trying to accomplish? His initial crusade in support of revealing US abuses was admirable, but it's clear to me at this point that he has other intentions beyond that.
Not endorsing Tulsi btw. Regarding that, does there need to be a baseline timeframe for when someone supported a position and now does not. Definitely any politician should not have any anti-LGBT attitudes or positions in the present.
From my lense, what I see regarding Gabbard is the entire political spectrum and corporate media literally shitting bricks. Even Trump's base are "promising" to destroy her candidacy, probably just for Tusli being a young woman politician.
A pretty big claim to state "the only people." People endorse candidates around some of their positions and ignore the rest. That's the reality of every race. Regardless, and this is only my opinion, I don't see Tulsi becoming a primary contender simply because from what I have seen those that announce runs very early usually don't make it and those that enter later usually do.
She's by no means a perfect candidate, but on her other merits she is progressive on these issues: Medicare for All , Environmentalism , $15 Minimum Wage , Wall Street accountability , failed War on Drugs , marijuana legalization , criminal justice reform , and indigenous water rights. Her vocal opinions on Syria, Iran, Yemen, Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Gaza set her extremely far apart from establishment foreign policy that it makes sense to me why Trump supporters and Centrist Democrats attack her.
Hypothetically if this were another universe where she were the primary Dem, Centrists, Other Dems, Green Party, etc. I could see giving their vote to her over Trump any day.
lol no
There is an ENORMOUS gulf between being, say, late to come out in favor of gay marriage and calling gay people "homosexual extremists."
I would hope that the Dems wouldn't give a pass to a former Klansman and they shouldn't give a pass to this piece of shit either.
That's great, but I don't see this being an interesting discussion. She's not going to be the primary period, which I already stated. By your analogy if a former child KKK, born again non-racist came out and did everything in their power to right wrongs (same goes for a felon or any other this and that change), your position is "once KKK, always KKK." Tusli isn't a s*** stain like Steve King, period.
For the record and all I could find: Tusli's extreme position was around 1990-2000 (likely from indoctrination positions from her family) -> 2002 "protect traditional marriage" (Tulsi between ages 17-21), 2004 "gay extremist" comment, signing an amicus brief in 2013 (challenging gay marriage). In 2013, her 30s now, she changed her mind, "Gabbard has supported efforts to promote LGBT equality, including co-sponsoring pro-LGBT legislation like The Equality Act, a bill to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect LGBT individuals."
"That caused me to really deeply reflect and be introspective on the values and beliefs that I had grown up with what I was experiencing there," she said. "And then coming back and eventually running for office again. And the conflict that I saw there, in standing for, believing strongly in, and fighting for these ideals of freedom and liberty that we hold dear in this country. It means that equality, that our laws, our government must apply that respect for every single individual. For people who choose to love or marry someone -- whether they be of the same gender or not, that respect, and that freedom for every woman to be able to make her own choice about her body and her family and her future. So it was a process that I went through that changed my views in many ways and in many big ways to the views that I hold today."
Bro. No. There are far worse, concentrate your inclinations on them first.
She's in one of the safest Democratic seats, get her out, get someone actually progressive in.
Also go find people actually worthy to stan for brah
The bizarre twist with the Intercept is how they're anti-war and anti-military establishment when it comes to Western countries, but pro-war and pro-military establishment with their apologism for military dictatorships outside of the West. That a publication and it's most prominent authors endlessly (and in many cases, rightly) criticize Western, American, or European military war making, but then continually prop up dictators who are actively murdering their civilians and neighbors is bizarre.
It's just bizarre for a publication to defend Bashar al Assad in one article and then criticize, say, Obama or Clinton in another, or at least, apologize for one and castigate the other.
We shouldn't confuse isolationism with pacifism, or with America stepping back from the international stage as a positive step towards global peace. Trump is not a pacifist, he's a nationalist. The same thing that informs Trump's xenophobia and hostility towards immigrants or people of color is the thing that motivates his military and foreign policy isolationism. More progressive Americans have wanted to cut into America's military hegemony for decades, and it just seems so bizarre that an alt-right conservative Republican like Trump has been achieving the outcomes of the progressive left better than any Democrat ever has. But, as a centrist Democrat, I don't think that we should think that Trump's destabilizing of American foreign policy abroad is going to result in less military adventurism. As America steps back on the international stage and becomes more isolationist, the vacuum is being filled by Iran, Syria, Russia, China, Turkey, and other growing military powers who have no interest in pursuing pacifism, but in broadening their sphere of military influence. You shouldn't be forced to capitulate with mass murderers and authoritarian military dictatorships in the pursuit of peace making, because if you do, the result won't be peace, but more war.
*edit*
Mostly criticizing Greenwald here. I know that Greenwald is not the Intercept, but he's largely their most public and prominent contributor and the one most closely associated with The Intercept.
It's just bizarre for a publication to defend Bashar al Assad in one article and then criticize, say, Obama or Clinton in another, or at least, apologize for one and castigate the other.
We shouldn't confuse isolationism with pacifism, or with America stepping back from the international stage as a positive step towards global peace. Trump is not a pacifist, he's a nationalist. The same thing that informs Trump's xenophobia and hostility towards immigrants or people of color is the thing that motivates his military and foreign policy isolationism. More progressive Americans have wanted to cut into America's military hegemony for decades, and it just seems so bizarre that an alt-right conservative Republican like Trump has been achieving the outcomes of the progressive left better than any Democrat ever has. But, as a centrist Democrat, I don't think that we should think that Trump's destabilizing of American foreign policy abroad is going to result in less military adventurism. As America steps back on the international stage and becomes more isolationist, the vacuum is being filled by Iran, Syria, Russia, China, Turkey, and other growing military powers who have no interest in pursuing pacifism, but in broadening their sphere of military influence. You shouldn't be forced to capitulate with mass murderers and authoritarian military dictatorships in the pursuit of peace making, because if you do, the result won't be peace, but more war.
*edit*
Mostly criticizing Greenwald here. I know that Greenwald is not the Intercept, but he's largely their most public and prominent contributor and the one most closely associated with The Intercept.
Last edited:
Right. She's a piece of shit.
How about if maybe you stop carrying water for someone who's used more extreme anti-gay language than Mike Pence. And maybe you could stop rationalizing homophobia and suggesting that gay people give Gabbard a pass. It's lowkey gaslighting and I'm not here for it.
I don't live in Hawaii, but if you do by all means if her progressive positions are not progressive enough for you. She's not Green party so I can't 'stan' for Tulsi, but I can certainly point out my opinions.
Tulsi Gabbard is a great example of a person whose opposition to the American military establishment throws her into the arms of dictators who gas their own civilians. She has no credibility and shares nearly as much in common with Donald Trump as she does with members of her own party.
My intention is neither "lowkey" or "gaslighting." So no. I just don't jump to reactions from the get go, like the french saying goes to swallow snakes and jumping the cock to the donkey.
So you support American military who bombs innocent civillians on the daily?