Whats your problem with Tulsi Gabbard ?Oh my, no. Gabbard is truly someone who has accomplished almost nothing and is severely lacking ethically, particularly in comparison to Clinton. I'd vote for Gabbard over Trump, but not over any decent Republican candidate. She'd be one of the worst major-party nominees ever.
What are you talking about?
Whats your problem with Tulsi Gabbard ?
From what i have seen she is a risk taker and for a politician a pretty straight shooter.
I read your reply as sarcastic. By doing nothing, I presume you mean Gabbard doing nothing for Wall Street. By severely lacking ethically, I hope you mean considered ethically lacking by unethical corporate Democrats. Please tell me you're not serious.Oh my, no. Gabbard is truly someone who has accomplished almost nothing and is severely lacking ethically, particularly in comparison to Clinton. I'd vote for Gabbard over Trump, but not over any decent Republican candidate. She'd be one of the worst major-party nominees ever.
She's nowhere near qualified to run for president. She's very unimpressive generally. And she has some serious ethical issues. I don't want to beat Trump with a left-leaning version of him.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she is a woman.
She lost because she is a cunt.
Alright. So you are serious. The issue is not beating Trump, because there are many Trumps waiting to replace Trump. And Gabbard is not a left-leaning version of Trump. Have you listened to Mark Blyth on Youtube describe the concept of Global Trumpism?She's nowhere near qualified to run for president. She's very unimpressive generally. And she has some serious ethical issues. I don't want to beat Trump with a left-leaning version of him.
I read your reply as sarcastic. By doing nothing, I presume you mean Gabbard doing nothing for Wall Street. By severely lacking ethically, I hope you mean considered ethically lacking by unethical corporate Democrats. Please tell me you're not serious.
Holy shit, the delusion is strong here.
Please, tell us how Obama was more qualified than here?
Alright. So you are serious. The issue is not beating Trump, because there are many Trumps waiting to replace Trump. And Gabbard is not a left-leaning version of Trump. Have you listened to Mark Blythe on Youtube describe the concept of Global Trumpism?
I admit I have not really deeply researched Gabbard's motivations, but I do know that mainstream Democrats dislike her, like they dislike Sanders, for committing some party heresies. A kind of smarmy disapproval based on non-issues. To me, that's a positive characteristic in a candidate. Again, I freely admit I might be missing something about her. But Clinton is a corrupt monster.
Are you possibly one of those Democrats who thinks Clinton would have been a pretty good president, but not as awesome as Obama? For some reason I remember you as being more intelligent than that.
Clinton didn't win because she was a woman.
When I say she has accomplished nothing, I'm referring to her poor educational background, lack of any private-sector success, and lack of experience in gov't (to be fair, she's only 36). She's already violated House ethics rules. Of course I'm serious.
Jeez, you can't make a single post without some lame insult, can you?
Obama was a Constitutional Law professor, a former editor and then president of the Harvard Law Review, a community organizer, a lawyer, a best-selling author, he had been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he'd gotten some good laws passed. And note that he was still considered arguably too inexperienced the first time. Gabbard isn't even close to having the resume that Obama did.
You see, I think I know your perspective well. I work for a large defense contractor, and I've been there forever so most of my friends and acquaintances are Ph.Ds in physics or engineering. I am one of the former. These friends -- the Democratic ones -- tend to say what you say. On the other hand, the few right-leaning colleagues tend to repeat the usual right-wing talking points. Clinton being corrupt is one of them (Clinton for prison, etc). Some of the people who are very senior (like hanging out with former presidents senior) also repeat some of the right-wing talking points. I have heard very powerful people deny climate change so sometimes its tough for me to remain respectful and objective. I ask myself what makes these amazing people deny facts that are as plain as the nose on their face. Anyhow, what is most remarkable is that often the anti-Democratic talking points used by Republican types are correct. They (Republicans) believe these talking points (Clinton for prison) because doing so strengthens their worldview, rather than invalidating it. Similarly, the anti-Republican talking points thrown around by the majority of my contemporaries are correct and do not compromise the Democratic loyalist worldview.In the sense that she's grossly unqualified and highly unethical but might appeal to rubes. Maybe more of a left-leaning Palin?
Again, I'm faced with this denial of the obvious any time I talk politics at work. I would suggest reading the right-wing talking points on Clinton's corruption, and then see if you can successfully refute it. I bet in many cases you can't, just like the right cannot refute most of the left's anti-Trump talking points because they're often correct.Clinton is not a corrupt monster. That's just stupid. The worst thing the GOP has been able to pin on her is violating State Department IT security protocols, which isn't even an ethical issue. And, sure, if you want a candidate that knowledgeable people who lean left dislike and don't care about the reasons for that dislike, Gabbard is your gal. And, sure, Clinton would likely have been a very good president, though, yeah, not likely as good as Obama.
It's not name calling, it's pointing out that your post is delusional.
She does not tow the party line, to her own detriment.
Again, I'm faced with this denial of the obvious any time I talk politics at work. I would suggest reading the right-wing talking points on Clinton's corruption, and then see if you can successfully refute it. I bet in many cases you can't, just like the right cannot refute most of the left's anti-Trump talking points because they're often correct.
You think it's "delusional" to think that a 36-year-old with minimal education and experience in gov't is not qualified to be the president of America? Really?
The term is "toe the party line," and this couldn't be more wrong. The only reason we're talking about someone so grossly unqualified is the self-serving steps she's taken.
I would suggest that you consider that I have read right-wing talking points on Clinton and that's precisely why I think it's such a stupid claim. In all of your responses, you haven't even attempted to argue in favor of your point so I'm not even sure how crazy you're getting with it. Do you think she's a murderer and a child sex trafficker or do you just buy CTs about her (extremely highly rated) charity work or what?
What's the basis of your defense of someone like Gabbard? Everything I said about her is objectively true, isn't it?
By 20 she'll have 7 years as a congresswoman. She began her public service in 2002, and has over a decade of military service.
Obama was a two year senator.
Remind us how 2 years is greater than 7.
The Clinton foundation is corrupt. Its a classical type of corrupt political vehicle. More generally, both Clinton and our good friend Obama are well-known to have been tightly coupled to Wall Street. It was when I heard Chomsky talk about this in 2008 that I realized that there was such a thing as "corporate" Democrats. You know for sure that when a person deifies A and demonizes B, where A and B are (Repub,Dem) or (Dem,Repub), that there is a lack of objective thought.I would suggest that you consider that I have read right-wing talking points on Clinton and that's precisely why I think it's such a stupid claim.
I don't really feel like writing long-winded posts in favour of this, like I don't want to write a long-winded post about the reality of climate change or the lack of evidence for god. It always ends up being a TL;DR. I've got better things to do today.In all of your responses, you haven't even attempted to argue in favor of your point so I'm not even sure how crazy you're getting with it. Do you think she's a murderer and a child sex trafficker or do you just buy CTs about her (extremely highly rated) charity work or what?
I think @bobgeese did a nice job with the list of bullet points.What's the basis of your defense of someone like Gabbard? Everything I said about her is objectively true, isn't it?
The Clinton foundation is corrupt. Its a classical type of corrupt political vehicle.
More generally, both Clinton and our good friend Obama are well-known to have been tightly coupled to Wall Street.
I don't really feel like writing long-winded posts in favour of this, like I don't want to write a long-winded post about the reality of climate change or the lack of evidence for god. It always ends up being a TL;DR. I've got better things to do today.