Elections Tulsi Gabbard just (informally) announced she is running for President

Im sure the DNC has already decided which pawn they will nominate under guidance of big banks, think tanks, george soros, israel etc. Im also sure whatever democrat is nominated will have a 98.8% odds to win the presidency.

Also wood.
 
Natty Dread said:
Im sure the DNC has already decided which pawn they will nominate under guidance of big banks, think tanks, george soros, israel etc. Im also sure whatever democrat is nominated will have a 98.8% odds to win the presidency.

Also wood.
Click to expand...

Honestly we prolly screwed. No elected incumbents lost a one on one matchup(third party gets less than double digits) for the Presidency since 1932(great depression). People like to say well Trump's different maybe, but just as a pure objective gambling man we fucked. Time before that was 1892 and 1888(same two guys both times) and time before that was 1840. This shit don't happen often.
 
ferrisjso said:
Honestly we prolly screwed. No elected incumbents lost a one on one matchup(third party gets less than double digits) for the Presidency since 1932(great depression). People like to say well Trump's different maybe, but just as a pure objective gambling man we fucked.
Click to expand...
I think Bernie will run again. The leftist voting base that made him popular has only grown. If I remember the stats correctly, younger people are more progressive than their elders, and more of them will be of voting age come 2020. Even if he doesn't, a lot of leftist ideas have become very popular since he ran in 2016. We have some momentum.
 
deviake said:
I think Bernie will run again. The leftist voting base that made him popular has only grown. If I remember the stats correctly, younger people are more progressive than their elders, and more of them will be of voting age come 2020. Even if he doesn't, a lot of leftist ideas have become very popular since he ran in 2016. We have some momentum.
Click to expand...
I'd be pretty peachy pleased with a Bernie/Sherrod ticket, if that's possible.
 
ferrisjso said:
Honestly we prolly screwed. No elected incumbents lost a one on one matchup(third party gets less than double digits) for the Presidency since 1932(great depression). People like to say well Trump's different maybe, but just as a pure objective gambling man we fucked. Time before that was 1892 and 1888(same two guys both times) and time before that was 1840. This shit don't happen often.
Click to expand...

Trump getting elected was like throwing a grenade in the gears. He wasnt supposed to win and so now its become a cultural phenomenon to shit on him for anything and everything. Even still, once in office he would have been briefed that the presidency isnt all what its made out to be, especially for trump being that hes been a private citizens his whole life and has never been involved in politics. Anyways the globalists are going to have a fucking field day next election and will do everything they can to get socialist scum into office. Its all about desteoying the country from within. Luckily for them they wont need to do much seeing as the next generation of snowflake millenials despise the country.
 
Fawlty said:
It's weird that you've been angry and insulting this whole time, but you're recoiling in horror because I match you there. Seems vaginal, maybe even armpittal. I'll take your failure to respond to my thoughtful post as you not wanting to go further with the argument. No worries.
Click to expand...

There was zero personal invective directed at you in the two posts of mine that preceded your last ad homs. (Unless you want to call political labels - in the context of a political debate - such. Which would indicate an absurd level of precious sensitivity.)

And maybe I would have overlooked being called things like "a bitch" if there was any substance at all or any engagement with the central premise of our debate in any of the things you wrote around the epithets.

Instead it was just a bunch of backtracking on your part that avoided having to confront the problem with your initial statements about Gabbard's illegitimacy as a candidate due to her lack of sufficient accomplishment.

Here's how an honest man would have replied to my posts:

"I cannot actually answer your request to provide a list of specific prospective POTUS resume benchmarks. Your forcing me to recognize this inability has helped me understand that any discussion about presidential qualifications can only be based around personal and subjective opinions. Now, here are my personal and subjective opinions about presidential readiness and the underlying ideas on which I base them. What opinions do you have about presidential candidates' resumes, Ultra?"

If you want to begin again from this intellectually honest starting point, Fawlty, I will be happy to engage you further.
 
Diamond Jim said:


Because god forbid tough questions are asked of a presidential candidate.
Click to expand...


Seriously, why does Tucker Carlson always have that "you're saying something stupid and it's making my brain hurt" expression on his face?

NoDak said:
And to think I mocked the idea of Tulsi Gabbard announcing her candidacy being worthy of its own thread, but here we are 20 pages deep. I think I have a decent sense of where a lot of left-wing posters fall (and generally group) on the social-economic axis but I'm obviously not active enough in the domestic politics threads because I didn't expect the infighting to devolve into personal attacks like that. It seems like some of this stuff has years worth of history behind it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put too much stock into it aside from appraising the personalities of the posters here. Believe it or not, a mixed martial arts website isn't the most accurate composite of the American political community (for instance, there aren't really any blue dogs and Possum and I are probably the only definitive leftists). But, basically, I'd sum up the issue as being a proxy war over the 2016 primary between distinct wings of Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters. Gabbard gets support from the wing of Sanders' supporters who weren't solidly left (with some even being former Republicans) and whose most galvanizing political leaning was a deep suspicion of the two major parties, corporations, and the media. Gabbard gets opposition from the wing of Clintons' supporters who are especially technocratic, who value institutional competence, and who are less suspicious of the parties themselves. I don't think either wing is especially representative of the left broadly or even of their candidates larger supporter base.
 
Last edited:
Merlotte's said:
Man she must have had some bad acne
Click to expand...

Yeah, I always feel bad for people like that (who aren't famous politicians). She'd be legitimately gorgeous with better skin and better tooth-gum ratio. She's still pretty, and her appearance means fuck all with regard to her as a candidate, but it was something that crossed my mind.
 
ultramanhyata said:
There was zero personal invective directed at you in the two posts of mine that preceded your last ad homs. (Unless you want to call political labels - in the context of a political debate - such. Which would indicate an absurd level of precious sensitivity.)

And maybe I would have overlooked being called things like "a bitch" if there was any substance at all or any engagement with the central premise of our debate in any of the things you wrote around the epithets.

Instead it was just a bunch of backtracking on your part that avoided having to confront the problem with your initial statements about Gabbard's illegitimacy as a candidate due to her lack of sufficient accomplishment.

Here's how an honest man would have replied to my posts:

"I cannot actually answer your request to provide a list of specific prospective POTUS resume benchmarks. Your forcing me to recognize this inability has helped me understand that any discussion about presidential qualifications can only be based around personal and subjective opinions. Now, here are my personal and subjective opinions about presidential readiness and the underlying ideas on which I base them. What opinions do you have about presidential candidates' resumes, Ultra?"

If you want to begin again from this intellectually honest starting point, Fawlty, I will be happy to engage you further.
Click to expand...
So this is a garbage response considering that I actually went into a couple of those areas of qualification, while rejecting your childish "benchmark" demand as a useless excuse for spinning away into a la-la land of subjectivity, which is exactly what it is.
 
Fawlty said:
So this is a garbage response considering that I actually went into a couple of those areas of qualification, while rejecting your childish "benchmark" demand as a useless excuse for spinning away into a la-la land of subjectivity, which is exactly what it is.
Click to expand...

I don't mean this to sound condescending but do you understand the difference between subjective and objective criteria?

Because a list of hard, minimum qualifications (ex: post-graduate degree, X number of years in congress and/or X number of terms as governor, etc,) is by definition "objective". Whereas everything you have proposed so far as necessary qualifications are by definition "subjective".

You even tried to move the goalposts on Gabbard by adding "ethics" to the theoretical presidential resume after I explained to you the importance that most voters place on a candidate's character.

But at the point you intervened in my conversation with Jack you were very clearly talking about "accomplishments". And the fact that Gabbard did not yet have enough "accomplishments" to warrant a presidential run.

When you were then made aware that a couple of the most beloved democratic presidents in modern history had an equivalent level of slim "accomplishment" prior to holding office you decided to get even squishier with your approach to the qualifications for POTUS.

Why don't you just admit you initially went off half-cocked and have now, given new information and further consideration, come to a different (and the proper) conclusion?
 
Fawlty said:
I'd be pretty peachy pleased with a Bernie/Sherrod ticket, if that's possible.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised Bernie's age hasn't been brought up more often. He'd be 83 at the end of his first term! In some cases, being ageist is warranted. Biden's a fossil as well (aside from very centrist).

I'm on Team Warren and even her age is a little concerning. Late 60s-early 70s should be the very oldest a person can be to be considered a viable candidate.

Warren/Sherrod would be nice. Sherrod brings in the rust belt white guys that can't quite stomach yet another woman Democrat (even though she's obviously very, very different from Hillary).

Edit: And to continue on the topic of age, I'm also surprised Gabbard's age isn't brought up. A president under the age of 40??
 
Possum Jenkins said:
I'm surprised Bernie's age hasn't been brought up more often. He'd be 83 at the end of his first term! In some cases, being ageist is warranted. Biden's a fossil as well (aside from very centrist).

I'm on Team Warren and even her age is a little concerning. Late 60s-early 70s should be the very oldest a person can be to be considered a viable candidate.

Warren/Sherrod would be nice. Sherrod brings in the rust belt white guys that can't quite stomach yet another woman Democrat (even though she's obviously very, very different from Hillary).
Click to expand...
I agree the age is a problem, and I'd feel better about a Bernie admin with Sherrod there in case he can't work or dies. Bernie's mind is still very sharp, but it could lead to an awkward 2024 election. There's something about the boomer gen and their general lust for power. They hold onto that shit like nothing I've ever seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,970
Messages
55,458,084
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top