Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 201: A Caravan Down By the River

(+) Yeah! (+)

Honestly, if Bernie runs again, which I expect him to, I think even Warren would likely not run so as to lessen the SFF. She could always coordinate with him to be his VP pick if when he gets the nomination. Polls still have Bernie as the most popular politician in the entire country though and him not running would be bewildering.

I still need to watch Tulsi's appearance on Joe Rogan because I'm a fan of hers, but now I can look forward to a heavy groan knowing that a Jimmy Dore shout out eventually happens.
---

metroid composite posted...

I mean, Jimmy Dore's politics proooobably aren't that far from mine on the left-right spectrum, but he comes across as a total asshole to me.

wut? why?

aside from spitting alex jones in the face (i hate alex jones as much as the next guy but that was a dick move), he seems like an ok dude to me.
---

we literally just had this Jimmy Dore discussion a few topics ago so let's please please never do this again. but I'll paraphrase what I said then

Jimmy Dore, in his very warranted disappointment with today's Democratic party, has become a gullible fool unwittingly helping the right -- see him pushing conspiracy theories like the "was Seth Rich murdered by the Clintons?" thing. Simply put, Jimmy Dore has become a useful idiot for the right to use. I am fully with Jimmy on his left-wing economic ideology/policy ideas, but we can still critique him for unintentionally becoming an enabler for horrible ideas and conspiracy theories. And sadly, he pushes that kind of nonsense on his program regularly these days.
---

StartTheMachine posted...

Jimmy Dore, in his very warranted disappointment with today's Democratic party, has become a gullible fool unwittingly helping the right -- see him pushing conspiracy theories like the "was Seth Rich murdered by the Clintons?" thing. Simply put, Jimmy Dore has become a useful idiot for the right to use. I am fully with Jimmy on his left-wing economic ideology/policy ideas, but we can still critique him for unintentionally becoming an enabler for horrible ideas and conspiracy theories. And sadly, he pushes that kind of nonsense on his program regularly these days.

well, i was asking mc and while this is fair criticism of dore this doesn't explain why he's a "total asshole" to me.

but yeah, that's definitely disappointing. i haven't watched much dore but whenever i watched one of his videos i agreed with pretty much everything he said so i liked him. but if he's constantly pushing insane conspiracy theories on his program that sucks indeed.
---

To be fair to Dore, I think the Seth Rich stuff was one of the most egregious examples but it's certainly not the only one. I don't get a "total asshole" vibe from him either, though, and I'll say again that his standup comedy is surprisingly hilarious. Very Carlin-esque, but not so much so that it's purely derivative.

so that part makes me like Dore more, but he's mostly still just a useful idiot to me at this point
---

From what i have seen he doesnt so much as push the seth rich stuff as not outright denounce it or refuse to cover it/listen to other people talk about it.

He definitely does toe the line of conspiracy nut though, which makes it difficult because some of the things he toes the line on are fairly reasonable. Like his wariness to accept us intelligence agency information on the russia shit, when we know those agencies have in recent history lied to the public (iraq, and at best it was terribly wrong information if not outright lies which is only somewhat better). He likes to play clips of mueller testifying about that iraq information.

I'm not saying I agree with what he says on that subject, but it is very interesting and not an unreasonable point to make.

As far as tulsi goes, I would honestly prefer tulsi to bernie. She comes across I think as a lot more well rounded and eloquent. Bernie has his script and he beats it into the ground. Tulsi feels more dynamic. Let's not pretend bernie doesn't have some questionable foreign policy positions too.

I'm not sure she would be my first choice, but I would take her over sanders or warren probably. At least on a personal level. Realistically, sanders or warren have the most name recognition and warren just shot herself in the foot so there goes that.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

xp1337 posted...

She's also had a bad history on a number of social progressive causes. Honestly, to me, she's one of the more conservative democrats (in a super blue seat) that is trying to take advantage of jumping on the Sanders bandwagon/anti-establishment sentiment. Looking solely at Hawaii Democratic politicians I'd say Hirono is someone I've liked.

Oh yeah Suprak, as for this part,15 years ago she had positions youd call Conservative today, but she publicly evolved on those positions sooner than both Obama and Hillary, and has voted in support of those positions, so when people on the Left bring this up I just throw my hands in the air because how can you argue with that?

are we really doing this again

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

There's a difference between the Democratic party at large being late to LGBT rights and Gabbard talking about "homosexual extremists," giving a speech objecting over teaching students that homosexuality is "normal and natural," and "inviting homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth," voting against civil unions, and voting against a bill to provide emergency contraception to survivors of sexual assault because it didn't have a conscience clause (not LGBT related but yeah)

Has she apologized for those remarks in 2012? Yeah. Has she changed her votes on these kinds of issues. Yeah. But comparing it to Obama, Clinton, and the typical Democratic politicians who were politically craven on this is disingenuous IMO. She went way further than they did.

Most democrats don't go on Fox in 2015 and accuse the Obama administration of not recognizing "Islamic extremists are our enemy."

And while this is less concrete, I think it was Kenri who said in the last round that she was "the alt-right's favorite democrat" and that is a sentiment that rings true to me. Obviously not saying that anyone who supports her is alt-right but she consistently comes up I've found when alt-right people are made to answer who their favorite Democrat is/what they wish the Democratic party looked like. And I think that is cause for concern. It's a bit of a low blow, but I mean Bannon reportedly likes her and thinks she "gets" the "foreign policy stuff." That kind of raises an eyebrow.

Like I said, I distinctly get the impression that the primary driver of her support from people otherwise on the left is anti-establishment/Democratic party sentiment.
---

The biggest conspiracy i think dore actually pushes (or at least entertains seriously) is questioning assad's involvement in those chemical attacks. Or whether those attacks happened. Or...something along those lines. I'm not too familiar with the specifics of that one.

Which is fairly nutty but i'm not entirely certain that benefits the right? Maybe it does. And from the position of "us intelligence officials have in recent history used false information to get us into a war" at least it makes sense to question that information.

I know barely anything about that situation, so I can't say how crazy he is for pushing this one, but it's the biggest thing I've seen him actually go to bat for
---

@xp1337 can you isolate the stuff in that article about her stances on lgbt issues? I was scanning to find it and couldn't find it, the article is very long and filled with fluff I don't care about
---

pxlated posted...

xp1337 can you isolate the stuff in that article about her stances on lgbt issues? I was scanning to find it and couldn't find it, the article is very long and filled with fluff I don't care about

It's about halfway down.

The New Yorker...

In her first political incarnation, Gabbard balanced liberal environmentalism with a pronounced conservative streak. In 2003, she voted against a bill to oblige hospitals to provide emergency contraception immediately to survivors of sexual assault, because it did not contain a conscience clause, to allow providers with a religious objection to opt out. She supported government surveillance efforts, warning that the demand for unfettered civil liberties could make the nation vulnerable to terrorists. And she joined her fathers battle against what she called homosexual extremists. In 1998, Mike Gabbard had successfully pushed for an amendment to the Hawaii State Constitution, to permit the legislature to ban same-sex marriage, which it did. Six years later, Tulsi Gabbard led a protest against a bill that would have legalized civil unions for same-sex couples. That same year, in the Hawaii State House, she delivered a long, fierce speech against a proposed resolution meant to target anti-gay bullying in public schools. She objected to the idea of students being taught that homosexuality is normal and natural, and worried that passing the resolution would have the effect of inviting homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth.

I think that covers most of what I mentioned on that subject. For anything else (including how she did apologize for the remarks later) just find that paragraph and go from there, it should be covered in the next few.
---

Hm. If it weren't for the statement that her views didnt change, just that she feels it isn't right to enforce those views in government, it would be simple to accept the change in position.

That is fairly concerning though. She at least no longer seems to be working against these things, and has a fine voting record on them and has cosponsored a number of positive things.



Not sure where this leaves my stance on her. No realistic presidential candidate in 2020 is going to be entirely ideal. Given this information I would probably support sanders over her though, given how similar their ideologies are. Put her in the cabinet maybe. I like her views on education and other things more because there is more nuance to them than sanders seems capable of expressing.

Really, I just wish sanders was more dynamic.
---

Speaking of LGBTQ+ stuff...

https://t.co/1TWLWHai6Z

The New York Times...

For the last year, health and human services has privately argued that the term sex was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

Yep just the DHHS sayin' some people should not have rights, nothin' too wild here
---

Yeah, to her credit, she has apparently stopped letting her views dictate her politics, but the fact that she still holds those views and is still at odds with the Hawaii LGBT Caucus is sort of concerning, especially since she has still been getting a lot of her staffers from that same old pool atleast until recently.

I just don't like how quick she is to latch on to things that suddenly make her a conservative darling. "Homosexual extremists," "Islamic extremists," and so on. Like, people like Fox News and Bannon have loved her for awhile, and that's just sorta gross.
---

seriously, "homosexual extremist" is a fucking dumb term.

reminds me of vlado saying one of the biggest problems in present-day western society is "people aggressively pushing homosexuality."
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, to her credit, she has apparently stopped letting her views dictate her politics, but the fact that she still holds those views and is still at odds with the Hawaii LGBT Caucus is sort of concerning, especially since she has still been getting a lot of her staffers from that same old pool atleast until recently.

I just don't like how quick she is to latch on to things that suddenly make her a conservative darling. "Homosexual extremists," "Islamic extremists," and so on. Like, people like Fox News and Bannon have loved her for awhile, and that's just sorta gross.

i'm not sure i agree with the characterization of "latching on to be liked by conservatives". when she was doing these things/expressing these views, she was only on the hawaiian stage, which is probably the bluest state in the country. from what i read, her father was a republican senator and very anti-lgbt and whatnot, and it feels like she inherited those views from him moreso than she latched on to them for political gain. that's not something she would have needed to do in hawaii.

not that it makes it better, i just don't think that's a fair way to characterize it. if she's doing anything, it's the opposite. latching onto things that make her look better to democrats in spite of her socially conservative viewpoints,
---

MrGreenonion posted...

Speaking of LGBTQ+ stuff...

https://t.co/1TWLWHai6Z

The New York Times...

For the last year, health and human services has privately argued that the term sex was never meant to include gender identity or even homosexuality, and that the lack of clarity allowed the Obama administration to wrongfully extend civil rights protections to people who should not have them.

Yep just the DHHS sayin' some people should not have rights, nothin' too wild here

yikes....is this statement from people that have been in that agency since before trump? or is this trump admin coming in and trying to retroactively change definitions
---

Oh, no. I'm not saying she purposely latched on to those things in order to be liked by conservatives

I'm saying she latched on to heavily conservative views of her own accord, and that's a bit concerning to me
---

pxlated posted...

yikes....is this statement from people that have been in that agency since before trump? or is this trump admin coming in and trying to retroactively change definitions

Pretty much all you need to know:

"Roger Severino, the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to answer detailed questions about the memo or his role in interagency discussions about how to revise the definition of sex under Title IX.
[...]
Mr. Severino, while serving as the head of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at the Heritage Foundation, was among the conservatives who blanched at the Obama administrations expansion of sex to include gender identity, which he called radical gender ideology."

---

pxlated posted...

yikes....is this statement from people that have been in that agency since before trump? or is this trump admin coming in and trying to retroactively change definitions

The latter.

The HHS memo is arguing they need to adopt a definition of sex that is "male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with" any dispute would need to use genetic testing.

Under the Obama administration they obviously did not take such a position and enacted recognition of gender identity and protections related to it (many of which have been eliminated by the Trump administration already)
---

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna922266

Women now prefer a Democrat Congress 57-32.

But I'm sure confirming Kavanaugh was a good way to court their vote.
---

oh, right, yeah.

people change. especially when it comes to parent-inspired ideology. i'm okay with accepting changing views. but the fact that she says her views haven't changed, and the way she responded to the hawaiian lgbt organization, and something like not sending a representative to advocate for same-sex marriage in a Hawaiian special referendum give the impression she might not be as on board for fighting for the rights of, say, trans people, as i would want from a candidate. she probably wouldn't work against them, which is good, but really we need more than a neutral on things like basic human rights for lgbt+ people. especially if the current administration is successful in going backwards on these issues.
---

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1054005406857617408?s=21

You dismember one journalist...
---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna922266

Women now prefer a Democrat Congress 57-32.

But I'm sure confirming Kavanaugh was a good way to court their vote.

Have Congress if you want it

Mitch just ensured a conservative nation for a generation, regardless of who gets elected :)
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna922266

Women now prefer a Democrat Congress 57-32.

But I'm sure confirming Kavanaugh was a good way to court their vote.

Have Congress if you want it

Mitch just ensured a conservative nation for a generation, regardless of who gets elected :)

Clarence Thomas aint no spring chicken.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna922266

Women now prefer a Democrat Congress 57-32.

But I'm sure confirming Kavanaugh was a good way to court their vote.

Have Congress if you want it

Mitch just ensured a conservative nation for a generation, regardless of who gets elected :)

Clarence Thomas aint no spring chicken.

Hes gonna leave and RBG is going to die before 2024.... so, that

Apparently it doesn't matter since Kavanaugh was the last conservative judge in the country and therefore had to be nominated. Otherwise they could have easily nominated a conservative judge who didn't alienate a needless amount of people.

/s
---

kevwaffles posted...

Apparently it doesn't matter since Kavanaugh was the last conservative judge in the country and therefore had to be nominated. Otherwise they could have easily nominated a conservative judge who didn't alienate a needless amount of people.

/s

Liberals were gonna freak out no matter who at all was nominated.
---

Wow that was a lot of talk about a mostly irrelevant congresswoman.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

HarrietTubgirl posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna922266

Women now prefer a Democrat Congress 57-32.

But I'm sure confirming Kavanaugh was a good way to court their vote.

Have Congress if you want it

Mitch just ensured a conservative nation for a generation, regardless of who gets elected :)

Clarence Thomas aint no spring chicken.

Black don't crack yo
---

Just finished voting. Longest line I've had to wait in to do so =)

(The median age of the line looked to be north of 50, but even more encouraging is that there was still a decent number of younger people, especially for 7 am on the first day of early voting)

Corrik posted...

Liberals were gonna freak out no matter who at all was nominated.

it was always going to be a conservative so liberals weren't going to be happy, no. there probably would have been less freaking out if they nominated someone who wasn't an habitual liar and probably a sexual assaulter, though.
---

Did most liberals freak out over Gorsuch? I don't think that they did, and even if I'm wrong about that I'm confident that it wasn't near the degree that they did over Kavanaugh.

(To clarify, I am referring to the nomination choice itself and not to all the stuff Mitch McConnell did before the nomination.)
---

If you remove the context from Gorsuch's nomination, there was some uproar about how blatant of a corporatist he is (mostly citing his ruling on the case where a trucker abandoned his frozen, non-functioning vehicle in favor of his own personal safety and was fired for it).

But it was all incredibly minor if you remove the context of Merrick Garland.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054351078328885248

watch out my American neighbours, unknown middle easterners are invading from Mexico and it's a National Emergy

fuck this piece of shit and all that support it
---

pyresword posted...

Did most liberals freak out over Gorsuch? I don't think that they did, and even if I'm wrong about that I'm confident that it wasn't near the degree that they did over Kavanaugh.

(To clarify, I am referring to the nomination choice itself and not to all the stuff Mitch McConnell did before the nomination.)

They had to use the nuclear option to appoint him. So, unequivocally, yes.
---

Paratroopa said he would vote for a confirmed child molester over a Republican. And you wonder why I consider some of you extreme ultra liberals.
---

Corrik posted...

Paratroopa said he would vote for a confirmed child molester over a Republican. And you wonder why I consider some of you extreme ultra liberals.

To be fair, given recent choices by the GOP, Para would more than likely be voting for the better of two child molesters in that scenario.
---

if the only piece of shit posts Corrik is making is "look at select quotes of evil LIBERALS" while consistently ignoring his own backyard he can just fuck right off

he's also welcomed to fuck off either way
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

if the only piece of shit posts Corrik is making is "look at select quotes of evil LIBERALS" while consistently ignoring his own backyard he can just fuck right off

he's also welcomed to fuck off either way

Lmfao. This is a literal shit post. "Post what I want you to post or fuck off"
---

he's not wrong that only complaining about "extreme ultra liberals" while people like MWC are posting here isn't entirely consistent. there's extremists on both sides.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

he's not wrong that only complaining about "extreme ultra liberals" while people like MWC are posting here isn't entirely consistent. there's extremists on both sides.

And I have called out the others time and time again.

But, acting like I need to "fuck off" and post about ultis behavior every time I call out a liberals behavior is silly and honestly sounds like trying to justify behavior or extremism. "It is okay cuz the right does it also so fuck off". Basically is what it amounts to.

The comment about para had literally nothing to do with anything else besides pointing out the extremism that does exist for some in this topic to the left, in which most here argue doesn't exist.
---

It's amazing how much you can read between the lines when trump says something that he "obviously doesn't read" but if a liberal exaggerates a hypothetical point you take them word for word.
---

Read should be mean there, obviously.
---

"amazing"
---

Shaduln posted...

It's amazing how much you can read between the lines when trump says something that he "obviously doesn't read" but if a liberal exaggerates a hypothetical point you take them word for word.

Is it an exaggeration
---

It's at very least a hypothetical.
---

Shaduln posted...

Read should be mean there, obviously.

You obviously don't read that.
---