Hillary vs Tulsi

[Jimmy Higgins]

So it's just a red scare, eh.

"Democrat"



 Democrat Party (epithet)

Your tell is showing, Jolly.

I honestly can't tell if you are pulling a poe here. Or is conspiracy just on your brain? And yes, it is very much a red scare.

Other than the whole indictment of Russians who did meddle in the election to help weaken Clinton's election chances or Presidency.

 

[Elixir]

What makes you think Gabbard is so pure and free from "rot" that she would be the one to reform anything anyway?

As an offspring of two ex-military parents with a lot of wartime experience, I tend (perhaps irrationally) to regard people with military backgrounds - including Tulsi - with a little more presumptive favor than the average civilian without such experience (such as Private Bonespurs). It doesn't speak to competence, but I do believe that the "rot" to which you refer is less prevalent among that ex-mil set (assuming honorable discharge etc.).

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-congress.html

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who has remained in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination even as her bid has failed to gain much traction in polls, announced Friday that she would not seek a fifth term in Congress.

The announcement was likely to fuel speculation that Ms. Gabbard may be preparing for a third-party race for the White House, a prospect that has unnerved Democrats. Last Friday, Hillary Clinton suggested that Republicans were “grooming” her for such a bid, though Ms. Gabbard has denied any such plans.

In a statement, Ms. Gabbard cited her desire to become president as the reason for not seeking re-election to her current office, telling her constituents that she would “humbly ask you for your support for my candidacy for president of the United States.”

Hmmm. I don't know, but it could be that Hillary was onto something. I doubt that Hillary is dumb enough to try another presidential run, but even if she did, I can't imagine her winning the nomination. The problem with the Democrats who are running, as I've said before, is that no one candidate seems to be able to unite the party. That is a potential problem.

 

[PyramidHead]

The problem with the Democrats who are running, as I've said before, is that no one candidate seems to be able to unite the party. That is a potential problem.

If there are genuine disagreements within a political party about something important, like wealth inequality, climate change, campaign finance, health care, corporate power, student debt, and foreign policy, then how is it rational to expect anybody to unite the party? What does a "united" party with those disagreements even actually look like, hypothetically? Do I get a prize if I guess that the correct answer is "the left wing stops whining and lets wealthy donors continue pushing the party to the right"?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-congress.html

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who has remained in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination even as her bid has failed to gain much traction in polls, announced Friday that she would not seek a fifth term in Congress.

The announcement was likely to fuel speculation that Ms. Gabbard may be preparing for a third-party race for the White House, a prospect that has unnerved Democrats. Last Friday, Hillary Clinton suggested that Republicans were “grooming” her for such a bid, though Ms. Gabbard has denied any such plans.

In a statement, Ms. Gabbard cited her desire to become president as the reason for not seeking re-election to her current office, telling her constituents that she would “humbly ask you for your support for my candidacy for president of the United States.”

Hmmm. I don't know, but it could be that Hillary was onto something. I doubt that Hillary is dumb enough to try another presidential run, but even if she did, I can't imagine her winning the nomination. The problem with the Democrats who are running, as I've said before, is that no one candidate seems to be able to unite the party. That is a potential problem.

It is a problem yes, and it is primarily people such as Hillary who split it apart. She adopted the Republican strategies of smearing anyone who disagrees with her and who dares run against her and her fellow party insiders. Bernie comes along in 2016 with new ideas and tries to push to party to the left, makes a point of not making "her damn emails" a talking point, keeps on his policy message, and she comes at him with "Bernie bros" and "magical ponies". He campaigned for her in the end. Would she have done so for him? Doubt it.

Then in 2019 she comes out of her cave after losing to Trump in 2016 only to attack a fellow Democrat and accuse her of being a Russian asset.... Of course the party is split.

 

[fromderinside]

As an offspring of two ex-military parents with a lot of wartime experience, I tend (perhaps irrationally) to regard people with military backgrounds - including Tulsi - with a little more presumptive favor than the average civilian without such experience (such as Private Bonespurs). It doesn't speak to competence, but I do believe that the "rot" to which you refer is less prevalent among that ex-mil set (assuming honorable discharge etc.).

I'd rather the opinion of the pointed headed intellectual with military experience, people like me, rather than that of a run of the mullet with military experience.

I take the one with potential damage to brain by combat who trains oneself to think over the one who has only potential brain damage due to combat. Actually I take the one who only has trained oneself to think and analyse evidence over most any one who has served in the military. Order following is a negative.

 

[PyramidHead]

As an offspring of two ex-military parents with a lot of wartime experience, I tend (perhaps irrationally) to regard people with military backgrounds - including Tulsi - with a little more presumptive favor than the average civilian without such experience (such as Private Bonespurs). It doesn't speak to competence, but I do believe that the "rot" to which you refer is less prevalent among that ex-mil set (assuming honorable discharge etc.).

I'd rather the opinion of the pointed headed intellectual with military experience than the run of the mullet with military experience. I take the one with potential damage to brain by combat who trains oneself to think over the one who has only potential brain damage due to combat. Actually I take the one who only has trained oneself to think and analyse evidence over most any one who has served in the military. Order following is a negative.

Counterpoint: anybody who voluntarily signs up to follow orders in America's armed forces and doesn't feel constant shame about it is untrustworthy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-congress.html

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who has remained in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination even as her bid has failed to gain much traction in polls, announced Friday that she would not seek a fifth term in Congress.

The announcement was likely to fuel speculation that Ms. Gabbard may be preparing for a third-party race for the White House, a prospect that has unnerved Democrats. Last Friday, Hillary Clinton suggested that Republicans were “grooming” her for such a bid, though Ms. Gabbard has denied any such plans.

In a statement, Ms. Gabbard cited her desire to become president as the reason for not seeking re-election to her current office, telling her constituents that she would “humbly ask you for your support for my candidacy for president of the United States.”

Hmmm. I don't know, but it could be that Hillary was onto something. I doubt that Hillary is dumb enough to try another presidential run, but even if she did, I can't imagine her winning the nomination. The problem with the Democrats who are running, as I've said before, is that no one candidate seems to be able to unite the party. That is a potential problem.

It is a problem yes, and it is primarily people such as Hillary who split it apart. She adopted the Republican strategies of smearing anyone who disagrees with her and who dares run against her and her fellow party insiders. Bernie comes along in 2016 with new ideas and tries to push to party to the left, makes a point of not making "her damn emails" a talking point, keeps on his policy message, and she comes at him with "Bernie bros" and "magical ponies". He campaigned for her in the end. Would she have done so for him? Doubt it.

She did for Obama.

Then in 2019 she comes out of her cave after losing to Trump in 2016 only to attack a fellow Democrat and accuse her of being a Russian asset.... Of course the party is split.

Well Gabbard did do a Brock Lesnar.

 

[fromderinside]

Counterpoint: anybody who voluntarily signs up to follow orders in America's armed forces and doesn't feel constant shame about it is untrustworthy.

Very few sign up to follow orders. They are conditioned into it during boot camp. Couldn't be better training for fanatics if that were the intent, It's something that needs to be erased or at least modified in the process of becoming civilian again*

*Trump effect consequence there.

 

[PyramidHead]

It is a problem yes, and it is primarily people such as Hillary who split it apart. She adopted the Republican strategies of smearing anyone who disagrees with her and who dares run against her and her fellow party insiders. Bernie comes along in 2016 with new ideas and tries to push to party to the left, makes a point of not making "her damn emails" a talking point, keeps on his policy message, and she comes at him with "Bernie bros" and "magical ponies". He campaigned for her in the end. Would she have done so for him? Doubt it.

She did for Obama.

Yeah, after commenting that she's staying in the primary race on the off chance he gets assassinated. After which more of her supporters voted for McCain than Bernie's ended up voting for Trump. Funnily, this bit of DiViSiVe PoLiTiCs didn't seem to harm Obama's chances much.

 

[PyramidHead]

Counterpoint: anybody who voluntarily signs up to follow orders in America's armed forces and doesn't feel constant shame about it is untrustworthy.

Very few sign up to follow orders. They are conditioned into it during boot camp. Couldn't be better training for fanatics if that were the intent, It's something that needs to be erased or at least modified in the process of becoming civilian again*

*Trump effect consequence there.

I'm sorry what? Who signs up for the military and is surprised to see that they have to follow the orders of the US military?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Counterpoint: anybody who voluntarily signs up to follow orders in America's armed forces and doesn't feel constant shame about it is untrustworthy.

An interesting point. You have elsewhere posted that if someone has served that person should not run for elective office. Yet you support warmongers.

You might want to inform your Antifa buddies that other criminal gangs (such as Crips and Bloods) have people join the military specifically to get combat training that they can use once they are done with their contract. That way they might not get their asses handed to them every time they pick on someone tougher than a 70 year old woman.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Counterpoint: anybody who voluntarily signs up to follow orders in America's armed forces and doesn't feel constant shame about it is untrustworthy.

Very few sign up to follow orders. They are conditioned into it during boot camp. Couldn't be better training for fanatics if that were the intent, It's something that needs to be erased or at least modified in the process of becoming civilian again*

*Trump effect consequence there.

I'm sorry what? Who signs up for the military and is surprised to see that they have to follow the orders of the US military?

You have to follow lawful orders, i.e. those stemming from the Constitution--to include UCMJ and Geneva Conventions. If your commanding officer tells you to commit warcrimes, you don't listen and even may report it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She did for Obama.

Obama was a great orator, but he didn't bring or attempt to bring fundamental change on the level that Bernie would. Obama kept to the system and rot that Hillary holds so dear.

If Bernie wins the nomination and Hillary backs him I will happily be wrong. But I very much doubt it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a problem yes, and it is primarily people such as Hillary who split it apart. She adopted the Republican strategies of smearing anyone who disagrees with her and who dares run against her and her fellow party insiders. Bernie comes along in 2016 with new ideas and tries to push to party to the left, makes a point of not making "her damn emails" a talking point, keeps on his policy message, and she comes at him with "Bernie bros" and "magical ponies". He campaigned for her in the end. Would she have done so for him? Doubt it.

She did for Obama.

Yeah, after commenting that she's staying in the primary race on the off chance he gets assassinated. After which more of her supporters voted for McCain than Bernie's ended up voting for Trump. Funnily, this bit of DiViSiVe PoLiTiCs didn't seem to harm Obama's chances much.

At which point do you notice Obama being more moderate than Sanders... and also following up the shit show that was the W Administration?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Biggest difference is that Obama spoke very well about hope and change but didn't talk policy nearly as often as Sanders (or as Yang or as Warren (to be fair)). Obama was far more a cult of personality. The man just oozed charm. Bernie is kind of the opposite. People like him for his policies, not for being the old dude with messy hair and his tongue sticking out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She did for Obama.

Obama was a great orator, but he didn't bring or attempt to bring fundamental change on the level that Bernie would. Obama kept to the system and rot that Hillary holds so dear.

The system of rot?

Oi!

Right now the GOP is mainly siding with the President that got caught red handed abusing his power by leveraging US military aid for a public political embarrassing of his political rival. And our Canadian Progressive just can't get over the amount of politics in a political party.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That the Republicans are filled with rot doesnt in any way mean that the Democratic party doesn't have plenty of rot of its own. Logic 101.

 

[ZiprHead]

That the Republicans are filled with rot doesnt in any way mean that the Democratic party doesn't have plenty of rot of its own. Logic 101.

Yet you seldom mention it. With every post, you further cement your reputation as a poe.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That the Republicans are filled with rot doesnt in any way mean that the Democratic party doesn't have plenty of rot of its own. Logic 101.

Yet you seldom mention it. With every post, you further cement your reputation as a poe.

I have mentioned it every single time I have been asked about it, Poe.

Lol us calling each other po has a whole other reverse meaning in Tagalog.