Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 233: Kashmir Outside, How 'Bout That?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/hindus-kashmir-celebrate-india-move-muslims-feel-deceived-190806074031370.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-kashmir-ladakh/indias-ladakh-buddhist-enclave-jubilant-at-new-status-but-china-angered-idUSKCN1UW1QL

Very tense times in Asia
---

Sounds like a situation that could use some careful diplomacy. Im sure Jareds on the case!

---

Oh my god

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O-iLk1G_ng" data-time="
---

Fucking yes. Far as I'm concerned EVERY candidate should get on Rogan. It's the most obvious move to get the masses. Yang did it and owes a lot of success to it, Tulsi owes a gigantic amount to it too. So much that she did it twice.
---

Imagine Trump on Rogan

Or maybe even better, Pence
---

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158679130835214338

are you having a laugh DNC

who is asking for this
---

https://twitter.com/Timodc/status/1158951568470765568

---

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158679130835214338

are you having a laugh DNC

who is asking for this

The candidates who can't get qualified.
---

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158679130835214338

are you having a laugh DNC

who is asking for this

no god please no
---

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1158896220309512192?s=21

Tucker Carlson covers for white supremacists in America by claiming they barely exist, while at the same time listing bigger problems in America that accidentally make Trumps boasts about the strength of the economy look like shit.
---

So based on my poll on Board 8, we have over 80% support for locking up the entire US population. Lock us up! Lock us up!
---

Corrik7 posted...

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158679130835214338

are you having a laugh DNC

who is asking for this

The candidates who can't get qualified.

I'm not even American and it seems painfully obvious that they should just whittle it down to five or so (and I think it's obvious who those five are). Right now all they achieve is a mess where minor players with no chance of winning just try and increase their reputation.

Also why do the mods leave Vlado's garbage up? It's actively dangerous at this point.
---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Also why do the mods leave Vlado's garbage up? It's actively dangerous at this point.

i asked this awhile back too.

lol @ the idea that "the ToU is enforced a lot more strictly" when vlado can cheerfully ask "why is racism bad?" without getting modded.
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1158691113047416832

"BUT GUYS, MASS SHOOTINGS HAVE ALWAYS HAPPENED"
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Lightning Strikes posted...

Also why do the mods leave Vlado's garbage up? It's actively dangerous at this point.

i asked this awhile back too.

lol @ the idea that "the ToU is enforced a lot more strictly" when vlado can cheerfully ask "why is racism bad?" without getting modded.

I know we're not supposed to openly talk about reporting other people's messages, but I have been marking those topics and nothing ever gets done. The fact that this message might get deleted yet topics which Vlado uses to openly preach fascism, racism, ethonationalism, misogyny, climate denialism, and to praise fascists and white nationalist terrorists are never dealt with is disgusting. It's not like this is subtle or exaggeration, that is what is in those topics. I never post in them because they should be left to purge if the mods won't do the right thing, but he just makes more.
---

https://twitter.com/cascamike/status/1158817297055830017

hot take: The ex-girlfriend attempting to monetize having dated a mass shooter is potentially a huge boon to incels everywhere. If thots start seeing dating a mass shooter as a path to viral fame, it's a game-changer!
---

That's maybe one of the dumbest hot takes I've ever seen, and that's saying something because you have a lot of dumb hot takes.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

hot take: The ex-girlfriend attempting to monetize having dated a mass shooter is potentially a huge boon to incels everywhere. If thots start seeing dating a mass shooter as a path to viral fame, it's a game-changer!

Literally how could an incel magically have an ex after a mass shooting
---

Because while this particular mass shooter wasn't an incel, but if girls go looking for "likely mass shooters" to date, a lot of them will be incels?
---

---

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158679130835214338

are you having a laugh DNC

who is asking for this

overcorrection to the 2016 complaints that they were shutting people out and coronating clinton
---

The DNC is going to fuck this all up again aren't they.
---

it was probably a request from CNN

Williamson and Tulsi are the only ones that are actually entertaining. No one but political nerds is turning on their TV to watch Kamala and Elizabeth Warren...
---

In what world is Tulsi Gabbard entertaining? I GENUINELY dont understand the right wings fascination with this woman. She is a charisma vacuum.
---

she says things that go off script from what everyone on that stage is supposed to say

thats pretty much the only time debates are at all entertaining (and exactly what worked for Trump)
---

SmartMuffin posted...

she says things that go off script from what everyone on that stage is supposed to say

thats pretty much the only time debates are at all entertaining (and exactly what worked for Trump)

Uh...what?

Her debate responses are exactly the same as everyone else, except with I was a soldier. War is bad. Peppered in. She is like listening to paint dry.
---

xp1337 posted...

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158679130835214338

are you having a laugh DNC

who is asking for this

overcorrection to the 2016 complaints that they were shutting people out and coronating clinton

Because even with trash tier candidates 2 days of debate brings in more money.

Espeon posted...

In what world is Tulsi Gabbard entertaining? I GENUINELY dont understand the right wings fascination with this woman. She is a charisma vacuum.

There are a lot of criticisms of her, but this is not one.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

she says things that go off script from what everyone on that stage is supposed to say

thats pretty much the only time debates are at all entertaining (and exactly what worked for Trump)

Hey now, they were also entertaining when Rubio physically could NOT go off script
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Espeon posted...

In what world is Tulsi Gabbard entertaining? I GENUINELY dont understand the right wings fascination with this woman. She is a charisma vacuum.

There are a lot of criticisms of her, but this is not one.

Based SOLELY on her performances in the two debates, what has Tulsi Gabbard done to distinguish herself as more than just a bland, generic candidate in the same vein as Tim Ryan? Seriously, Im went into these debates genuinely wanting to give her a chance, because that ISideWith poll put her at the top of my list. But her debate performance shows me nothing but a woman with less charisma than Hillary Clinton, who would get utterly destroyed in a debate against Trump.
---

Yeah that is strange. She is definitely in the top half of candidates if we're going by presence on stage alone. I understand not liking her foreign policy or doubting her commitment to progressive ideas (even though I disagree on that second part), but I have a hard time imagining thinking she has less charisma than that big swath of oatmeal nothingness on stage polling at 0%.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

she says things that go off script from what everyone on that stage is supposed to say

thats pretty much the only time debates are at all entertaining (and exactly what worked for Trump)

Hey now, they were also entertaining when Rubio physically could NOT go off script

Let's dispel this fiction once and for all that Smuffin doesn't know what he's doing.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Yeah that is strange. She is definitely in the top half of candidates if we're going by presence on stage alone.

Really? I honestly don't see it.

Warren and Sanders can command my attention. Buttigieg can sometimes. Punished Beto can but he only rediscovered that form just now. Biden when he's on can do it. So can Harris and Booker.

Now granted with 24ish candidates running I'm only at 7 there and we've hit the point where I'd start struggling to name more. Certainly I'd place Gabbard's presence/charisma over say... Hickenlooper or Ryan lol. But I think the others are more or less in the same ballpark.

then again apparently trump has charisma and i will never ever see how in the world anyone thinks that
---

the single most entertaining moment of Marco Rubio's career

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXCJKJUcGQ0" data-time="
---

xp1337 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Yeah that is strange. She is definitely in the top half of candidates if we're going by presence on stage alone.

Really? I honestly don't see it.

Warren and Sanders can command my attention. Buttigieg can sometimes. Punished Beto can but he only rediscovered that form just now. Biden when he's on can do it. So can Harris and Booker.

Now granted with 24ish candidates running I'm only at 7 there and we've hit the point where I'd start struggling to name more. Certainly I'd place Gabbard's presence/charisma over say... Hickenlooper or Ryan lol. But I think the others are more or less in the same ballpark.

then again apparently trump has charisma and i will never ever see how in the world anyone thinks that

Well I said in the top half! She's not on the level of the frontrunners and she could never get the cult of personality of someone like Bernie, for example. But she knows how to talk like a human and I'd easily slot her in that 7-10 spot over most of the field.

She's personable and I thought her debate skills were pretty good. I went into the debates not liking her based on what I knew of her foreign policy, but I thought she's been pretty good in the debates thus far.
---

Based on the debates, in terms of who commands attention (and keep in mind, Im not saying that commanding attention is either positive or negative...just that the come across as forceful and passionate and memorable):

Sanders > Harris > Warren > Booker > de Blasio > Biden > Williamson > Delaney > Buttigieg >>>>>>>>>>>>> Inslee > Castro > Gillibrand > Yang >>>>>>>>>>>> Bennet > Klobuchar > Bullock > ORourke > Gabbard > Hickenlooper > Ryan

ETA: Skipped Pete when I was checking the list of candidates.
---

I'm no Gabbard advocate, but in debate 1 she humiliated Tim Ryan, and debate 2 she tore the neck of the previous debate star Kamala. She's certainly done well for herself, much better than the unmentionables and the disappointing flop Beto.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

I'm no Gabbard advocate, but in debate 1 she humiliated Tim Ryan, and debate 2 she tore the neck of the previous debate star Kamala. She's certainly done well for herself, much better than the unmentionables and the disappointing flop Beto.

Eh. Swalwell had some solid body blows to Biden and Buttigieg, and he was so irrelevant he dropped out of the race. Gabbard jumping on a Tim Ryan gaffe and pointing out Harris prosecutorial record is no different, really. To me, at least.
---

Tulsi Gabbard is great! Refreshing, non-ideological, she's exactly the sort of candidate the Democrats need. Which means they won't pick her - we can count on them to pick the worst, least electable candidate, all the while telling themselves it's the most electable candidate. Then they'll blame independents and Republicans for not voting for the disaster they nominate.
---

She has no personality when she isn't attacking the other candidates, though. She's no better than deBlasio or Delaney. She has a couple good shareable moments and that's it. But then again, that's the goal of this debate format.
---

I mean I'm not saying she did amazing, but that the 'top half' benchmark is incredibly low and she easily passes it.

Like in Inviso's ranking you got a bunch of complete nobodies who did absolutely nothing like Klobuchar ahead.
---

She makes liberals upset, and she was doing that long before these debates. That quality is in fact critical to winning over independents.
---

Are independents fond of defending child murderers?

---

Independents are not centrists
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

I mean I'm not saying she did amazing, but that the 'top half' benchmark is incredibly low and she easily passes it.

Like in Inviso's ranking you got a bunch of complete nobodies who did absolutely nothing like Klobuchar ahead.

How? She brought ZERO passion to the debates. Klobuchar sucked, but at least I understand WHY she thinks she can run for president. Honestly, MOST of that bottom tier makes sense to me: theyre relatively moderate dems from midwestern or southern states who feel like they can appeal to the rust belt states that Hillary lost. Sure, theyre voids of charisma, but their hearts are in the right places...mostly. With Gabbard though, youre from a deep blue state and lack the passion of that top tier. Why is she even running?
---

https://twitter.com/MikevWUSA/status/1159138888532811778

Jesus fucking christ

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Like in Inviso's ranking you got a bunch of complete nobodies who did absolutely nothing like Klobuchar ahead.

Can't speak for Inviso, but for me at least, there's a difference between charisma and having a good debate/better debate than x. They're often related but not necessarily so, especially in the silly 10-people-on-a-stage format.

Gabbard has accomplished more in these debates than most (enough to put her in the top half if that was the metric I suppose), I'd agree, albeit I think what she's accomplished is primarily taking down Harris. (clowning Ryan is not really an accomplishment it's like when you beat a joke character in an rpg and get 1 exp out of it.) If you want to be charitable, you can say that's because the format prevents any real substantive policy debate because- oh sorry my 60 seconds are up time to wait 25 minutes before i can talk again.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Are independents fond of defending child murderers?

Are you talking about Assad?

I will tell you, if 6 years ago, we had followed the Trump/Gabbard strategy of taking our hands off and letting Russia and Assad win their war in Syria - there would have been hundreds of thousands fewer deaths in Syria. Our desire to virtue signal paired with our refusal to actually do anything significant enough militarily to do more than prolong the war in Syria cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

So who's worse, the politician who recognizes reality or the one who follows policies anyone could have predicted would result in massive needless death?

In war, do your utmost to either win or don't fight. The worst outcome is to fight and lose. You get all the negative consequences of not fighting (losing) plus massive amounts of death.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Are you talking about Assad?

I will tell you, if 6 years ago, we had followed the Trump/Gabbard strategy of taking our hands off and letting Russia and Assad win their war in Syria - there would have been hundreds of thousands fewer deaths in Syria. Our desire to virtue signal paired with our refusal to actually do anything significant enough militarily to do more than prolong the war in Syria cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

So who's worse, the politician who recognizes reality or the one who follows policies anyone could have predicted would result in massive needless death?

In war, do your utmost to either win or don't fight. The worst outcome is to fight and lose. You get all the negative consequences of not fighting (losing) plus massive amounts of death.

People can reasonably disagree about whether or not it's better to intervene in a clusterfuck like Syria. Not wanting to do so in no way requires questioning the fact that Assad gassed kids.

---