Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I feel bad for Tulsi Gabbard

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Omegaphallic
    started a topic I feel bad for Tulsi Gabbard

    I feel bad for Tulsi Gabbard

    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?

  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Eh... the Washington Swamp is totally something that could use some draining if you're serious about getting the US government to work better. Trump just likes it as a slogan and doesn't care about the substance of what it's supposed to mean.

    While I think calling them trash is overboard (they're people doing work for their party), there are way the DNC could be reformed to work better by ensuring the party bosses are more easily kept in check by the grassroots, alter the nomination process in numerous ways to make sure the top tier candidates are closer to what the party voters actually want and not have a billionaire throw money at things while quality candidate have to drop out over money, etc.

    The problem is that like all sorts of generally democratic institutions, accountability is heavily dependent on constant constituent engagement. I'm a strong supporter of Unions, but one of the flaws with Unions is that if the workers let the Union leadership do whatever because they just pay their dues and elect whoever is already in charge, the leadership has little reason to resist sketchy decisions that lead to ineptness and/or corruption.

    The same thing happens with political parties. The Democrats are particularly bad about this because the base is hard to keep engaged every election let alone in the actual party. People complain about the DNC, and check out, but never look at things like "who's actually running my local Democratic party?" to see that in huge parts of the country the answer is a small handful of people out of the vastly larger organization that's supposed to exist. Even if they're good people fighting the good fight and all that, they're hamstrung by having way too much work for way too few people to actually make the party work like the voters say they want on the local level. Which repeats to the state level, and to the national level.

    It's kind of ironic that Democrats love to dunk (rightfully) on trick-down economics, but the party runs on trickle-down politics which doesn't work either. If all you're doing is talking about replacing the current DNC leadership, all you're going to get is the same problems with new people. The waste in the system isn't trash people, it's all the power the grassroots base could have if they would take it instead of leaving it in the hands of a small group of insiders that don't have to compete for power.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwight
    replied
    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    I'm hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi Dem ticket in 2020 and then clean the trash out of the DNC.
    I'm curious as to what you think this "trash" is composed of, to me it sounds just like the "drain the swamp" rhetoric from the Trump campaign

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    And if we needed any further evidence on why a lot of people don't like Tulsi Gabbard?

    Today's comment on Trump firing the Vindman brothers is telling. "Elections have consequences" so Trump can fire an active duty decorated member of the military from a government post for... going to the Congress to testify truthfully.... and his active duty government position holding brother just for extra spite... without reproach is a horrible stance for her to take. Especially skipping over the election that gave the Democrat control of the House should have some oversight consequences and all that stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    Most democrats might like their party, I really can't see why, but I think many maybe most hate the corrupt DNC, at least I hope so.
    Most Democrats like their party because they pay attention to what they say and do, rather than getting all their facts from unaccountable propagandists on whatever cesspool of the Internet you think is a home of people worth listening to.

    As well, the ineptness of the DNC isn't actually corruption just because you don't like how the process works. I doubt you could explain the functioning and organization of a US political party on even the most surface enough details to demonstrate that you understand, for yourself, what the structural problems with them are, and if those can even be fixed instead of just being inherent in the system. Which is why all you constantly do is regurgitate bullshit from whatever YouTube channel makes you feel good about yourself instead of being honest with you.

    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    I will note that their are pro GLBT Republicans, including out Reblicans so its not all Republicans,...
    #NotAllRepublicans is really even part of the response you want to give?

    Why do you think I would ever want to encourage anyone to vote Republican?
    Because you don't seem to recognize that US politics is a zero-sum game. When you, to be charitable, unknowingly spread misinformation about the Democrats, you're trying to empower the Republicans. That's how it works here. If people aren't voting for Democrats, it's helping Republicans win elections.

    If you think that:

    1) The Republican party's policies are abhorrent because if enacted they'd actually kill you.

    2) But the Democrats are far from perfect.

    Sitting around slamming the Democrats all the time doesn't do anything but increase the risk the Republicans get enough power to kill you. It doesn't excuse Democratic flaws, but none of those flaws are so bad they can't wait compared to fighting off threats to people's lives.

    I'm hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi Dem ticket in 2020 and then clean the trash out of the DNC.
    Not going to happen:

    Bernie's still a long shot even if he's got better odds with a big field.

    Bernie's VP selection is not to make you happy. VP selections are about unifying the party after the nomination (and some other traditional concepts of how to pick, though many are of questionable value). Bernie, if he plans on beating Trump, is going to pick a VP that Democratic voters that aren't so into Bernie are going to like to help keep the appeal of the ticket broad.

    The president and vice president don't dictate to the DNC. This is one of those structural issues you don't seem to understand. Even if Bernie/Tulsi somehow came out of nowhere to be the ticket and win, they can demand the DNC do all sorts of things, and the DNC can just tell them to fuck off, and all Bernie/Tulsi could do is try to politically attack their own party (you know, the one they need to enact all their policies). And that intra-party fighting would just mean we don't get proper universal health care, a Green New Deal, fair tax policy, voter protection, equal rights for all protections, criminal justice reform, and all that other super important stuff. Why?

    The US president isn't a dictator. Not even Trump, not even if after he survives his impeachment trial. Because Trump can't get away with anything without the backing of the Congressional Republicans (at a minimum). Bernie/Tulsi can propose all the legislation they want, but if they piss off the party in the process, the Congressional Dems can toss all of the Bernie/Tulsi plans in the trash and write their own. This extends even farther to the DNC.
    Last edited by Heavy Arms; 02-02-2020, 05:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCountAlucard
    replied
    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    Why do you think I would ever want to encourage anyone to vote Republican?
    Because you keep shit-talking Democrats.

    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    I'm hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi Dem ticket in 2020 and then clean the trash out of the DNC.
    And I'm hoping Bernie wouldn't shackle a millstone like Tulsi Gabbard to his ankle before trying to swim competitively.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    Originally posted by atamajakki View Post
    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.
    Sorry it took so long to respond, I forgot about this thread.

    I will note that their are pro GLBT Republicans, including out Reblicans so its not all Republicans, but as I whole I see no reason to like the Rupublican Party at all, its been vile since at least Reagan.

    Why do you think I would ever want to encourage anyone to vote Republican?

    I'm hoping for a Bernie/Tulsi Dem ticket in 2020 and then clean the trash out of the DNC.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

    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.
    Most democrats might like their party, I really can't see why, but I think many maybe most hate the corrupt DNC, at least I hope so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tytalus
    replied
    Originally posted by atamajakki View Post

    “Revolution” and “don’t talk politics because they’re divisive” are sort of diametrically opposed sentiments.
    I also did not say I have consistent beliefs. No really, if I gave in to my inner demons, I would be a radical activist out there assassinating corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. The incompetence of our leadership infuriates me.

    So, I have to detach, and focus ONLY on what I have control over. And I have noticed that really talking politics never seems to go well, and that I lose more than I gain with other people.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    "But they're all corrupt!" is also a huge part of the problem. Corruption isn't a binary thing. It exists on a scale. The vast majority of Americans are criminals. US law is so convoluted and between multiple overlapping jurisdictions, it's almost impossible to live in this country without breaking some law. But we don't think the vast majority of Americans should be labeled as criminals, or suffer significant (if any) penalties for that, because we recognize that most people didn't mean to do it, and didn't harm anyone just by violating some code in some statute somewhere.

    By the same token, yes, pretty much every politician is corrupt, but most of it isn't corruption we really have a problem with; in fact a certain amount of it is intended. Our system is designed around the idea that the federal legislature is made up of people who want to get federal resources used for the benefit of their constituents rather than the whole of the country. The whole process of Congresspeople and Senators trying to steer government contracts to their states is always a little corrupt. But that's normal, socially acceptable, corruption. It's speeding 5 mph over the speed limit corruption.

    The people that benefit the most from trying to push the line that all politicians are equally corrupt, are the most corrupt of them, because it helps hide the extent of their impropriety.

    If someone openly admits to being a murderer tried to argue that they shouldn't be held to a different standard than all the millions of US citizens that violate traffic laws without facing any legal consequences every day, you'd laugh that argument in the face. Murderers don't get to go free because people speed, or run a light, or whatever, without getting caught. But when people do the whole, "they're all corrupt!" thing... they're making the same argument the murderer is making.

    Leave a comment:


  • atamajakki
    replied
    Originally posted by Tytalus View Post
    I always see discussions about politicians and political figures as divisive and never ending well. I used to participate in discussions like this in the past, and now I've just given up. The US politics are so unbelievably corrupt, even many the US don't understand how much corruption they've legalized and normalized. I vote revolution.
    “Revolution” and “don’t talk politics because they’re divisive” are sort of diametrically opposed sentiments.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tytalus
    replied
    I always see discussions about politicians and political figures as divisive and never ending well. I used to participate in discussions like this in the past, and now I've just given up. The US politics are so unbelievably corrupt, even many the US don't understand how much corruption they've legalized and normalized. I vote revolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • atamajakki
    replied
    Omega, I would genuinely love to see a response, especially to my comment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by Lorekeeper View 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by Lorekeeper View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Lorekeeper View Post
    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!

    Originally posted by Lorekeeper View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Lorekeeper View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Lorekeeper View Post
    I apologise for my absolutist wording before, it didn't really help the discussion
    No worries.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X