2020 election

[C-Mag]

Tucker analyzes the modern Dem party

[C-Mag]

Moar Jimmy Dore...……….. because he's fucking hilarious

[C-Mag]

Michael Moore: Help us Michael, you're our only hope.

[pineapplemike]

Who’s Afraid of Tulsi Gabbard?
The lawmakers talks about the environment, war, nuclear safety, the media, pay-for-play politics, and the 2020 presidential race in a new Rolling Stone podcast
By Matt Taibbi
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 70003/amp/

“It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the only response to the truth.”

Gabbard, 38, burst into headlines after a July 31 Democratic Party presidential debate, when she went after California Senator Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General of the State of California. The “smear campaign” refers to the bizarre avalanche of negative press that ensued, as reporters seemed to circle wagons around a Harris, a party favorite.
...
The New York Times wrote Gabbard believes the United States has “wrought horror on the world,” and that “critics have called her actions un-American.” Politico denounced Gabbard’s “Star Wars bar scene-like following” and hissed that the Daily Stormer was a supporter (Gabbard has repeatedly condemned white nationalism and sworn off their support). On The View, co-host Sunny Hostin called Gabbard a “Trojan Horse,” while Ana Navarro viciously insinuated Gabbard, an Iraq veteran, was part of a foreign column.

“I suspect there is something going on,” said Navarro. “I think she’s a decent human being who served this country, but I’m paranoid.”

The campaign against Gabbard is part of another remarkable shift in the Democratic Party. Barack Obama’s star began to rise as a presidential candidate 12 years ago, in 2007, when asked in a debate if he’d be willing to meet with Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.

Obama said he would, that “it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.” He added: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration — is ridiculous.” He went on to cite, as Gabbard has done, the example of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who both met with Soviet leaders.

It is true that Hillary Clinton pushed back against Obama’s position in that debate, calling it “irresponsible,” but the moment was a key in endearing Obama to liberal voters who were tired of Bush’s gunboat lunacy. The episode also helped define one of the more meaningful policy differences between Clinton and Obama. But the progressive position that meeting with dictators and/or adversaries is not only defensible but desirable no longer has any representation in major America media.

...

On her conclusions about the efficacy of foreign interventions:

We look at terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. They have been born out of these wars, and have been strengthened because of these wars and interventions. So it’s made us less safe, as a country. It has come at a tremendous cost to both our service members and their families…

It’s come at a tremendous cost to the American people, with the $6-plus trillion that’s been spent since 9/11 alone. Families in Flint, Michigan right now, who are still being told, “Sorry, there’s just not enough money to make sure you’ve got clean water…” We’re still spending $4 billion a month in Afghanistan.

On the underpublicized Hawaii nuclear scare of 2018, and how that motivated her to run for president:

Early on a Saturday morning, over a million people all across our state woke up to a warning that went out across cell phones, blaring on sirens, saying, “There’s a missile incoming. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.”

It was absolutely terrifying, terrifying, because we quickly came to realize there was no shelter. There was nowhere for our loved ones to go, and this is where we had kids on our University of Hawaii college campus sprinting in all directions. “Seek immediate shelter,” but where do you go?

On an NBC News story on February 2, asserting that she was being supported by the “Russian propaganda machine” – a story that appeared timed to the launch of her campaign:

We were contacted about that story a few days or maybe a week before my official launch for my campaign for president, and we were told it was going to come out in the week after I was going to announce my candidacy… until all of a sudden we found out when the article was posted. I think it was two hours before I gave my speech.

On Democrats who say they’ve seen the light about Iraq:

If you look at a lot of politicians now, it’s easy and popular to say, “Oh, of course the Iraq War was wrong. Of course,” now that we’re almost 20 years later from launching that war.

But what about today? Where’s your courage today to stand up against the regime change efforts in Syria, and in other countries, frankly, that are happening right now?

how absolutely embarrassing for the democratic party that this woman doesn't have growing support

[SuburbanFarmer]

I think she has a lot more support than what is shown. But it won’t matter. The DNC selects their candidate regardless.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't think they can do it this time, but I don't think she is beating Bernie by any significant margin.

She does obviously have the power to destroy the establishment candidates, which might have been her plan all along. She already destroyed Harris as a viable candidate. I suspect Biden is coming up.

There's no other establishment candidate after Biden.

The real question is.. does the democratic electorate realize she would destroy Trump in a general election campaign or not? I am not sure either way. I don't think many democrats are paying much attention yet.

[StCapps]

I don't think they can do it this time, but I don't think she is beating Bernie by any significant margin.

She does obviously have the power to destroy the establishment candidates, which might have been her plan all along. She already destroyed Harris as a viable candidate. I suspect Biden is coming up.

There's no other establishment candidate after Biden.

The real question is.. does the democratic electorate realize she would destroy Trump in a general election campaign or not? I am not sure either way. I don't think many democrats are paying much attention yet.

Trump would crush her. Even the non-inteventionists wouldn't fully back her and plenty would vote for Trump, maybe even more would vote for him, and that's only real edge she has on him. If it's even an edge at all, it's an irrelevant one that won't win the election. She would also murdered by Trump with the foreign policy hawks and wouldn't win enough votes from him with doves to win.

You thinking Tulsi has any chance of beating Trump, is pure wishful thinking.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't think they can do it this time, but I don't think she is beating Bernie by any significant margin.

She does obviously have the power to destroy the establishment candidates, which might have been her plan all along. She already destroyed Harris as a viable candidate. I suspect Biden is coming up.

There's no other establishment candidate after Biden.

The real question is.. does the democratic electorate realize she would destroy Trump in a general election campaign or not? I am not sure either way. I don't think many democrats are paying much attention yet.

Trump would crush her. Even the non-inteventionists wouldn't fully back her and plenty would vote for Trump, maybe even more would vote for him, and that's only real edge she has on him. If it's even an edge at all, it's an irrelevant one that won't win the election. She would also murdered by Trump with the foreign policy hawks and wouldn't win enough votes from him with doves to win.

You thinking Tulsi has any chance of beating Trump, is pure wishful thinking.

She may not win, but it wouldn’t be for the reasons stated. There are more than enough dupes out there that think he’ll really follow through, he just needs 4 more years .

[Speaker to Animals]

She would fucking crush him. Imagine a debate between just her and him.

Trump lost most his base anyway.

[StCapps]

She would fucking crush him. Imagine a debate between just her and him.

Trump lost most his base anyway.

Trump has his base firmly behind him, he's got something like a 90% approval among Republicans.