I feel bad for Tulsi Gabbard

[Omegaphallic]

Tulsi Gabbard is wonderful and doesn't deserve to be smeared. This is some who served her country at her own expense, whose career took a massive blow when she stood up to the DNC on Bernie's behalf, who time and again shows courage and wisdom. And she has the endorsement of Joe Rogan.

But she is getting the single most horrific smearing I have ever seen politician get, all of it seems back to Hillary Clinton. If I'd known Hillary was this evil, I would never have endorsed her against Trump.

Tulsi is not a Russia asset, an Assad Apologist, Modi apologist, Hindu Nationalist, Islamicphobic, Republican, Trump Supporter, or any of the other aburb accusations against.

Every time I think Canadian politics is getting bad, I look at American politics and I feel sick to my stomach. In Canada one of the harshest attacks against a politicians campaign is that they are engaging in American style politics because US politics horrifies most Canadians in my experience.

Even if one doesn't support Tulsi how in good conscience can anyone treat her like that.

It's the most horrifying example, but it's not alone. Why would anyone want to be an American politician?

[AnubisXy]

Gabbard has made some bad calls during her time in office, which she rightly got called out for for. She's apologized or acknowledged some of them (like being against LGBTQ rights early on but eventually coming to feel that those opinions were wrong). She's also done some stuff I like. Generally speaking I'm not a fan of hers, but I agree that Hillary's accusations, that Gabbard was being "groomed" by Putin to be a Russian asset were totally uncalled for. Such an accusation is uhh, pretty inflammatory to say the least, and Hillary has never provided any sort of evidence to back something like that up.

[Charlaquin]

And she has the endorsement of Joe Rogan.

The comedian?

[Heavy Arms]

Tulsi Gabbard is wonderful and doesn't deserve to be smeared.

She does, however, deserve plenty of criticism for her time as a politician.

Though everyone gets smeared in US politics; esp. those running for high office.

...who time and again shows courage and wisdom.

Not really as a politician. Her biggest political issues are wanting to get America out of military involvement with countries, but increase military action on fighting terrorism. That's not really a wise or courageous position, because as she should well know, that's a stupid line to push. You can't drone strike terrorism out of existence. If you want to fight terrorism at some point you have to get at the root causes of it, and that means investing both diplomatic and military resources into other countries.

Her lack of wisdom is on display in all sorts of places.

Her vote on the articles of impeachment was pretty spineless as well. She voted present for the reason that.. she thinks Trump should be impeached but too many Congresspeople are voting based on partisan motivations. "I'm not going to do the right thing, because some of the people are doing the right thing are doing it for what I believe are the wrong reasons," is not a courageous stance, nor is not voting for it if she believes he's done impeachable acts simply because the Republicans are unlikely to break and remove him.

Also, she "stood up" to the DNC by quitting a position that's required to not endorse a candidate in the interest of fairness, so she could endorse Bernie... that's not courage.

If all of her good policies are ones she's just copying from other people anyway... why not just vote for them (since they're running and all)?

And she has the endorsement of Joe Rogan.

She has the endorsement of a comedian and reality TV show host that voices his political opinions. So what?

But she is getting the single most horrific smearing I have ever seen politician get, all of it seems back to Hillary Clinton. If I'd known Hillary was this evil, I would never have endorsed her against Trump.

It goes back to Clinton, but it's a false narrative.

Clinton's comments about someone being a Russian asset were about Jill Stein. Her claims about Gabbard (which she didn't actually name as Gabbard) were that she's the current favorite for bad actors in US politics (domestic and foreign) to be a spoiler candidate.

While it's a fairly difficult to justify claim, Gabbard's responses have only made it worse, not better. Esp. since Gabbard regularly attacks the Democratic establishment while forgetting that Democrats generally like their party (why outsider candidates struggle a lot in Democratic politics is because a lot of outsider campaigns forget that they turn off a lot of core Democratic voters by overdoing their criticisms of the Democratic party... which Gabbard has probably tanked her run by doing).

...an Assad Apologist...

Kind of a mixed bag on this. She'll call him bad names, but also doesn't want us to do anything about all of the stuff he does to earn those bad names. "Assad does bad things, but as long as he's killing terrorists it doesn't matter," might not be apologism, but it's not a good stance either.

..Modi apologist, Hindu Nationalist, ...

Again, it's not that she's necessarily an apologist. It's just her untenable stance of supporting people that support her ideal War on Terror, while advocating to ignore all the bad shit they do.

Modi is the Hindu Nationalist. The criticism of Gabbard is that she wants to back his Nationalist party because terrorism, not that she's a Nationalist for another country.

Every time I think Canadian politics is getting bad, I look at American politics and I feel sick to my stomach.

Politics here sucks, yes. It's even less fun when you live here.

Even if one doesn't support Tulsi how in good conscience can anyone treat her like that.

The problem is that you're just cherry picking so absurd bits off the Internet to slam them as absurd, and not actually putting much thought into the more reasoned criticisms there.

If Tulsi wants it to stop... she can drop out. She's in 10th place in national polling averages. Her numbers aren't getting better. Her chances of making it through the primary are abysmal. If she wants to run as a maverick... she should wait for a Democrat to take the White House, and then run to try to blunt the US's tendency to like to switch parties after one has the Presidency for long enough. But that would take the courage to acknowledge this isn't her time despite the investment in trying, and the wisdom to listen to people that study this stuff for a living instead of plowing on and hoping the giant field lets a dark horse slip through.

Why would anyone want to be an American politician?

Most people that want to be politicians, agree with them or not, actually believe they're the best people to have that power to guide the country into the future. That all the muck of campaigning is worth it, because in office they'll make the country a better place.

Or they're greedy and corrupt and getting even one 2-year term in the House comes with a shit ton of perks and a lot of ways to cash in your power so you're sitting pretty when you lose it.

[Omegaphallic]

She does, however, deserve plenty of criticism for her time as a politician.

Though everyone gets smeared in US politics; esp. those running for high office.



Not really as a politician. Her biggest political issues are wanting to get America out of military involvement with countries, but increase military action on fighting terrorism. That's not really a wise or courageous position, because as she should well know, that's a stupid line to push. You can't drone strike terrorism out of existence. If you want to fight terrorism at some point you have to get at the root causes of it, and that means investing both diplomatic and military resources into other countries.

Her lack of wisdom is on display in all sorts of places.

Her vote on the articles of impeachment was pretty spineless as well. She voted present for the reason that.. she thinks Trump should be impeached but too many Congresspeople are voting based on partisan motivations. "I'm not going to do the right thing, because some of the people are doing the right thing are doing it for what I believe are the wrong reasons," is not a courageous stance, nor is not voting for it if she believes he's done impeachable acts simply because the Republicans are unlikely to break and remove him.

Also, she "stood up" to the DNC by quitting a position that's required to not endorse a candidate in the interest of fairness, so she could endorse Bernie... that's not courage.

If all of her good policies are ones she's just copying from other people anyway... why not just vote for them (since they're running and all)?



She has the endorsement of a comedian and reality TV show host that voices his political opinions. So what?



It goes back to Clinton, but it's a false narrative.

Clinton's comments about someone being a Russian asset were about Jill Stein. Her claims about Gabbard (which she didn't actually name as Gabbard) were that she's the current favorite for bad actors in US politics (domestic and foreign) to be a spoiler candidate.

While it's a fairly difficult to justify claim, Gabbard's responses have only made it worse, not better. Esp. since Gabbard regularly attacks the Democratic establishment while forgetting that Democrats generally like their party (why outsider candidates struggle a lot in Democratic politics is because a lot of outsider campaigns forget that they turn off a lot of core Democratic voters by overdoing their criticisms of the Democratic party... which Gabbard has probably tanked her run by doing).



Kind of a mixed bag on this. She'll call him bad names, but also doesn't want us to do anything about all of the stuff he does to earn those bad names. "Assad does bad things, but as long as he's killing terrorists it doesn't matter," might not be apologism, but it's not a good stance either.




Again, it's not that she's necessarily an apologist. It's just her untenable stance of supporting people that support her ideal War on Terror, while advocating to ignore all the bad shit they do.

Modi is the Hindu Nationalist. The criticism of Gabbard is that she wants to back his Nationalist party because terrorism, not that she's a Nationalist for another country.



Politics here sucks, yes. It's even less fun when you live here.



The problem is that you're just cherry picking so absurd bits off the Internet to slam them as absurd, and not actually putting much thought into the more reasoned criticisms there.

If Tulsi wants it to stop... she can drop out. She's in 10th place in national polling averages. Her numbers aren't getting better. Her chances of making it through the primary are abysmal. If she wants to run as a maverick... she should wait for a Democrat to take the White House, and then run to try to blunt the US's tendency to like to switch parties after one has the Presidency for long enough. But that would take the courage to acknowledge this isn't her time despite the investment in trying, and the wisdom to listen to people that study this stuff for a living instead of plowing on and hoping the giant field lets a dark horse slip through.



Most people that want to be politicians, agree with them or not, actually believe they're the best people to have that power to guide the country into the future. That all the muck of campaigning is worth it, because in office they'll make the country a better place.

Or they're greedy and corrupt and getting even one 2-year term in the House comes with a shit ton of perks and a lot of ways to cash in your power so you're sitting pretty when you lose it.

Why would anyone like the Democrats? They are aweful, I mean because of your system your stuck trying to fix that vile party of corruption and incompetence, but I find anyone who is not apart of the establishment liking that party baffling.

Ending regime change wars makes sense, American foreign policy has been a global disaster for decades based on corruption and lies. And a good chunk of anti terrorism activity is cooperating with other nations for policing as well as better diplomatic activity.

And alot of other folks policies actually starting from something done by Tulsi.

And saying if Tulsi wants it to stop she should drop out is straight up intimidation, these are lies coming from organizations like MSNBC and other corrupt news outlets. No one should give into such intimiidation tactics.

But I do believe she should sue groups like CNN and MSNBC and the NYTs. I mean they have put out their put right lies and she has every right to clear her name.

[Charlaquin]

Yes, the Democratic Party does suck, but the alternative is the Republican Party or revolution. And the latter’s gonna take some work.

[Heavy Arms]

Why would anyone like the Democrats?

Because they:

1) Actually govern the country well.
2) Support more positions held by the majority of the country.
3) Are better at actually governing according to the principles they say they will.

They are aweful,

Compared to who? The Republicans have sold their souls to Trumpism. The Libertarian party continues to shoot itself in the foot by only catering to right-wing Libertarians instead of having any hopes of being a serious party by not just being a different flavor of Republican. The Green Party has nothing to offer policy-wise, and their best candidates on a national level would be rejects form the Democrats for a lot of reasons.

Ending regime change wars makes sense,...

Sure. But it doesn't make sense to couple this with being an anti-terrorism hawk (her own label by the way). As long as there are state sponsors of terrorism, you can't effectively fight terrorism directly without dealing with those nations' leadership.

It's also important to differentiate between instigating regime change, and picking sides when an unstable country is having a civil war, if you're going to successfully deal with these things.

...American foreign policy has been a global disaster for decades based on corruption and lies.

Again, compared to who?

Also, frankly, the biggest weakness in US foreign policy isn't corruption or lies (though have you considered that your protesting someone being smearing don't really carry weight when all you can do is smear other politicians?), it's our lack of consistency. Without a unifying issue like WWII or the Cold War, with term limits on our Presidents, and a tendency to switch parties frequently, the US's foreign policy changes every 4-12 years, frequently rather radically.

And a good chunk of anti terrorism activity is cooperating with other nations for policing as well as better diplomatic activity.

Which means... committing our military resources to aid those nations...

And alot of other folks policies actually starting from something done by Tulsi.

Citation needed.

And saying if Tulsi wants it to stop she should drop out is straight up intimidation,...

No, intimidation would require me saying it to her.

As it is? It's just a matter of fact. US presidential candidates need thick skins, because smearing is par for course. If you think what she's getting now is bad... what do you think it would look like if she was running against Trump?

...these are lies coming from organizations like MSNBC and other corrupt news outlets.

Um... what lies did I mention? When did I cite MSNBC?

Also, citation need.

But I do believe she should sue groups like CNN and MSNBC and the NYTs.

For... what? Having pundits that don't think highly of her? Reporting what prominent political figures said about her? Suing them for that is just intimidation tactics.

I mean they have put out their put right lies and she has every right to clear her name.

Citation needed, again.

----------

Also, in general, your level of information on these things is woefully biased and misinformed. Perhaps you should actually expand your sources a bit, because I have a strong feeling your preferred sources of "news" about US politics are from people that have extremely biased reasons to lie to you about other sources... since convincing people to mistrust all other news outlets then their approved list is how they keep you consuming and not leaving your bubble.

[atamajakki]

Omega, I’ve gotta ask: as a queer person, why would I like the Republicans, whose opinions on me span a range from “you should be able to be fired at will” to “you need electroshock conversion therapy” to “you are going to hell and deserve to die” ?

I don’t like the Democrats, but this is a country with two functional parties, and one considers opposition to my existence a central political opinion.

[TheCountAlucard]

For that matter, as a poor person, why should I like the Republicans, who want to take away any and all programs the government has that keep me from getting poisoned, starved, put out on the street, or otherwise ground to a pulp by the corporate machines that pay for their re-election... and then blame my mangled tumor-riddled corpse for "what's wrong with this country?"

I don't care for the Democrats, but I still want to live.

[ArcaneArts]

Well Phallic, that's one way to live up to your name. You do you.

[Lorekeeper]

...this is a country with two functional parties...

As a (politically inclined) Australian, seeing this sentence makes me want to add an "only" between "with" and "two"

I mention this because the two-party system of the US is, to me and many others like me, a fruitless effort of growing extremism as one party eventually finds the easiest way to get votes is simply to do the opposite of the other party, and then vice versa. And this thinking is seeping into my own country's politics, which is suffering because we run under a completely different system.

So now many Australians view the political choice as only between two parties despite the fact that there are many other parties and independents with diverse views, but the Many still think the only ones that matter are those two biggest parties (and given we could have one of those without a >50% membership in the lower house and still have government, this annoys me more because the Many don't understand this.)

Personally, the idea of revolution in the US is something I could back you in. Your system is built around one person (the president) having greater legislative power (vetos, presidential demands) than any other elected representatives. I can't see how that's a good idea, when all's said and done.

Additionally, massive political reform in the US might lead the Many in Australia to actually stop considering politics Americanly. Because Australia is not the US. We don't (and never should) operate under the banners of "Left" and "Right" wings (especially as, globally speaking, even both US parties would sit rather Right-wing) because the boxes don't fit our parties and independents well at all

As an edit, I'd like to add I also don't think much of the Democrats of the US. That said, I think even less of the Republicans. US imperialism and warmongering is enacted by both sides (or neither, as the CIA and FBI are often the reasons for it)

(I understand if this post could be seen as inflammatory or unnecessary, so mods do with it what you will)

[Charlaquin]

As a (politically inclined) Australian, seeing this sentence makes me want to add an "only" between "with" and "two"

I think the “only” was implied in Remi’s post.

I mention this because the two-party system of the US is, to me and many others like me, a fruitless effort of growing extremism as one party eventually finds the easiest way to get votes is simply to do the opposite of the other party, and then vice versa. And this thinking is seeping into my own country's politics, which is suffering because we run under a completely different system.

Most of us in the US feel this way about it too. Nobody likes that we have a functionally two-party system and votes for third parties are effectively thrown away. It’s just a function of how much bigger those two parties are. This consolidation of power is the natural result of hierarchies. Without reorganization into a less centralized structure, the two-party outcome is pretty well inevitable. Now, I’ll admit I don’t know how Australia’s government structures work, but I would guess the trend towards two dominant parties is more a result of the structure itself than of influence from American political thinking,

So now many Australians view the political choice as only between two parties despite the fact that there are many other parties and independents with diverse views, but the Many still think the only ones that matter are those two biggest parties (and given we could have one of those without a >50% membership in the lower house and still have government, this annoys me more because the Many don't understand this.)

Do those other parties stand a realistic chance against the two major ones though?

Personally, the idea of revolution in the US is something I could back you in. Your system is built around one person (the president) having greater legislative power (vetos, presidential demands) than any other elected representatives. I can't see how that's a good idea, when all's said and done.

It’s a pretty broken system for sure, and things are reaching a boiling point. I think violence is very likely in the aftermath of the 2020 election, one way or another.

Additionally, massive political reform in the US might lead the Many in Australia to actually stop considering politics Americanly. Because Australia is not the US. We don't (and never should) operate under the banners of "Left" and "Right" wings (especially as, globally speaking, even both US parties would sit rather Right-wing) because the boxes don't fit our parties and independents well at all.

Err... First of all, yes, the Democrats are liberal, (which is near to the center of the political compass) and the republicans are far right, but our national Overton window has been shunted so far right that many Americans think of liberalism as left. But, uh, all political philosophies sit somewhere on the left/right spectrum. Granted, the standard political compass is an oversimplification, but the idea that “left” and “right” wouldn’t be applicable to Australian politics is... odd to me.

[Lorekeeper]

The Major parties (Labor and Liberal, the Liberal party being the more "conservative" one. Confusing, I know) generally have power in the lower house because of higher first preference votes. And even then, second preferences often go to them. The Many of Australia often see voting for the other parties as "wasting your vote", when it is, by the preferential voting system for the lower house, physically impossible to do so. Preferencing another party 4th or 5th or even further down the list, under the assumption your 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences don't make it, will be counted in the tally the same as if it was the 1st preference. The idea of wasting your vote is extremely damaging to our political climate.

If you meant "do they stand a chance" as "do they have the numbers/funding?", I can say that a select few minor parties have a candidate running in most electorates across the country. The Greens in particular have a candidate in almost all, if not every, electorate. Funding depends on companies, mostly. Of the major parties, Labor mostly gets union funding while Liberal get a lot from big banks and businesses like that. Greens are mostly funded by small businesses. The independent member of my electorate is mostly self-funded. So yes, you'll see a lot more of the major parties in advertising, but the main issue comes from the multi-national news corp who funds the Liberal party. I could go on and on about how the Australian political system works/is supposed to function, but this isn't the thread for it

I may have been a bit heavy-handed in my previous post. Left and Right certainly apply to Australia in some ways, particularly economically, but overall it's better to look at "progressive" and "conservative" if you want a 2-ended spectrum. Even then the terms are more subjective than they should be. Personally, I think the political compass needs a few more dimensions than we can graphically represent for it to be truly accurate and to account for all the myriad political and social views people and representatives hold.

I apologise for my absolutist wording before, it didn't really help the discussion

[Charlaquin]

The Major parties (Labor and Liberal, the Liberal party being the more "conservative" one. Confusing, I know)

Nah, makes sense to me. Especially in the 21st century, liberalism is a conservative ideology. Might be confusing to some less politically-aware folks, especially in America, but it makes sense if you know what the words actually mean.

generally have power in the lower house because of higher first preference votes. And even then, second preferences often go to them. The Many of Australia often see voting for the other parties as "wasting your vote", when it is, by the preferential voting system for the lower house, physically impossible to do so. Preferencing another party 4th or 5th or even further down the list, under the assumption your 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences don't make it, will be counted in the tally the same as if it was the 1st preference.

Huh, that seems pretty cool!

The idea of wasting your vote is extremely damaging to our political climate.

Yeah, ours too, but it’s also the reality we have to deal with.

I may have been a bit heavy-handed in my previous post. Left and Right certainly apply to Australia in some ways, particularly economically, but overall it's better to look at "progressive" and "conservative" if you want a 2-ended spectrum. Even then the terms are more subjective than they should be. Personally, I think the political compass needs a few more dimensions than we can graphically represent for it to be truly accurate and to account for all the myriad political and social views people and representatives hold.

Generally left and right are the x-axis on the grid, with authoritarian vs. libertarian being the y-axis. But yeah, much like the D&D alignment system, the political compass is a vastly oversimplified model that can’t adequately represent all possible ideologies. If you wanted to really dig into it you could easily have over a dozen different axis, and it would be more accurate, but still an imperfect model, and much more difficult to grok. The simple two-axis grid is lacking, but it’s an approachable shorthand.

I apologise for my absolutist wording before, it didn't really help the discussion

No worries.

[Heavy Arms]

I mention this because the two-party system of the US is, to me and many others like me, a fruitless effort of growing extremism as one party eventually finds the easiest way to get votes is simply to do the opposite of the other party, and then vice versa.

It's important to remember though, that we didn't start with a system that was designed around two parties. In fact the US was built by men with the majority against having recognized parties at all, but couldn't build in any practical way to stop parties from forming, so the ones arguing to address parties from the beginning formed a party and broke the system. We've been fixing it, or making or worse, depending on your view point, for the past 219 years.

The tribalism of today is the product of centuries of decision making, not a single structural element.

For example, it's worth looking at how we originally picked the Vice President, and how that got changed to being someone picked by the President instead.

The Vice President was supposed to be the runner-up in the Electoral College. Controlling both the presidency and vice presidency by one voting bloc/party would mean having the two best performing candidates (which was supposed to dissuade parties because even with parties they'd generally end up having to split the executive branch). The only time this really mattered was for John Adams, who had to deal with Jefferson as his vice president (while arguably it went well from a broad view, neither of the two emerging parties at the time like the results), followed by Jefferson and Burr successfully gaming the Electoral College in 1800 to avoid Jefferson being president with Adams as his vice president.

Rather than using their power to revise the Electoral College to avoid these problems, starting with the 12th Amendment, the US has further eroded what was supposed to be a check and balance within the system in favor of giving power to parties.

It's important to not just look at how things are now, but also how they got there. Systems change after all.

Your system is built around one person (the president) having greater legislative power (vetos, presidential demands) than any other elected representatives. I can't see how that's a good idea, when all's said and done.

This isn't really accurate. The amount of executive authority the current US presidency has is vastly out of step with the founding documents. The problem is that the legislature has repeatedly ceded it's own power to the executive branch. The vice president actually has more constitutional legislative power... but that ceased mattering once the VP became the president's hand picked subordinate.

Additionally, massive political reform in the US might lead the Many in Australia to actually stop considering politics Americanly.

All I can say, is to caution what you wish for. Massive political reforms don't also go the way you hope, and don't always inspire others in the way you'd hope.