Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:49 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266

Crossover appeal - a meandering pro-Gabbard post


What forms of crossover appeal are acceptable to the Democrats?

There are broadly speaking two camps in the Dem party. They both agree Trump must be defeated. Some believe a pure progressive would stand a better chance or that since his defeat is almost inevitable, they should use the chance to install a good one. That’s fine.

Some believe a more moderate person should be nominated. Besides those whose positions and preferences line up with someone like Biden or Harris, there are some in this camp that are true progressives but are willing to compromise on some issues to help soothe the moderate Republicans, neoconservatives, neoliberals, and others who dislike Trump but might balk at a Warren or a Sanders.

To me, it seems like the issues they are willing to use to appeal to the other side varies by candidate. Some don’t want to scare off people with Medicare for all. Some don’t want to give too much away to immigrants. Some don’t want to talk about how much their policies will cost. Let’s call them the palatable candidates.

Since the issues of imprisonment, war and the military is foremost in my mind in every national election, I can’t help but notice two common themes. All of the palatable candidates are hawks. Biden is a hawk across the board. Harris is a hawk across the board. Going back, Obama was a hawk across the board. Clinton...

The other common theme is tough-on-crime. Biden is a tough guy. Harris is a tough guy. Obama was a tough guy (especially in regards to war on drugs and immigration). Clinton...

So to this observer, the acceptable ways for a Democrat to garner crossover support are to be hawkish and tough on crime.

Then I look at someone like Tulsi Gabbard. She is targeted by centrists for her crossover appeal. The things she is targeted for:

- Refuses to say Assad used chemical weapons without further proof.
- Conducted diplomacy with Assad.
- Said we should move on to other issues after Mueller.
- LGBTQ... stuff.
- Believes there exists such a phenomenon as “Islamic terrorism”.
- Calls herself a hawk on wars against terrorism.

Gabbard has won the Drudge poll two times. Pat Buchanan said to dump Bolton for Gabbard. She is popular with libertarians who hate Trump like myself, and even those who are ok with him. She was liked by Bannon. Big time crossover appeal. How does the Dem observer explain her support on the right. I explain it simply and I am familiar with the right. It’s about her opposition to the wars and willingness to conduct diplomacy.

She also doesnt want to impeach Trump, doesn’t want to give illegals(!) free education. But I don’t think that explains her support from the right. She hasn’t been targeted from the pure antiwar left as far as I see it either. The anti-Gabbard posters here tend to be centrist Dems, or at least hawkish Dems.

I guess I’m just at a loss to explain these seemingly related phenomena in the Dem party. The House has been decent as of late on war related issues, but they did give the pentagon every penny they asked for.

To me, the presidency is about being commander in chief first and foremost, appointments are a close second. Everything else is a mess of politics and who knows the outcome. Here is a candidate in Gabbard that has some form of support across a very wide spectrum of voters. An impossibility in our times. Name one other active politician who can be heralded in some way by Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Nancy Pelosi, and Bernie Sanders. It can’t be done. Hell, you probably couldn’t get them to agree on a brand of toothpaste.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-02-2019 at 08:51 AM.
  #2  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
I'd pick Gabbard over Trump, and probably over Biden, but that's about it -- I think she's said very bigoted things, both about LGBTQ people and Muslims, and advocated for bigoted policies. She's walked back a bit of that, but not nearly enough, IMO. She opposed the Iran nuclear deal, at least until recently, AFAICT. She appears to be a Netanyahu disciple on Middle-Eastern issues -- IIRC, she was the only or one of the only Democrats to attend Bibi's bullshit charade in DC a few years back. I certainly don't trust anyone a hateful troglodyte like Bannon (or adjacent-to-white-supremacists like Buchanan and Paul) is comfortable with. With all this in mind, I don't think she's honest and therefore I don't trust her sometimes dove-ish rhetoric.

So that's why she's low on my list.
  #3  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:29 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Her “sometimes dove-ish rhetoric” beats Biden and Harris’ always hawkish rhetoric for me, but she does have some problems.

So you don’t care why right wingers might like her? Seems like Dems very much care to appeal to the Zionists (Bill Kristols and David Brooks’) of the world, but don’t like icky non-interventionists like Paul and Buchanan. So if Netanyahu is your problem maybe you should re-evaluate this huge contradiction. Your claim of her being a Netanyahu disciple, in juxtaposition with Harris for example, is laughable.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-02-2019 at 09:32 AM.
  #4  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:33 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
She's Will Farnaby's favorite Democrat. We'll take that into consideration.
  #5  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:34 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Her ďsometimes dove-ish rhetoricĒ beats Biden and Harrisí always hawkish rhetoric for me, but she does have some problems.

So you donít care why right wingers might like her? Seems like Dems very much care to appeal to the Zionists (Bill Kristols and David Brooksí) of the world, but donít like icky non-interventionists like Paul and Buchanan. So if Netanyahu is your problem maybe you should re-evaluate this huge contradiction.
I certainly don't care about appealing to assholes like Kristol or Brooks, and the only way they're better than Buchanan and Paul is that they don't have a history of spouting and/or tolerating hateful rhetoric (and don't support Trump, at least in Buchanan's case). So I see no contradiction.
  #6  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:38 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I certainly don't care about appealing to assholes like Kristol or Brooks, and the only way they're better than Buchanan and Paul is that they don't have a history of spouting and/or tolerating hateful rhetoric (and don't support Trump, at least in Buchanan's case). So I see no contradiction.
You see no contradiction in dismissing a candidate as a Netanyahu disciple applauded by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan?

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-02-2019 at 09:38 AM.
  #7  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:40 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
In any case does anyone care to answer the question? What is acceptable crossover appeal? Being liked by Kristol and Brooks for you foreign policy positions or being liked by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for your foreign policy positions? Neither?
  #8  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:41 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
You see no contradiction in dismissing a candidate as a Netanyahu disciple applauded by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan?
I certainly don't. Maybe those assholes (Paul and Buchanan) are contradicting themselves, but I'm not. I think Netanyahu sucks. I also think Paul and Buchanan suck. If all three like Gabbard, then that's 3 marks against her, by my judgment.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-02-2019 at 09:42 AM.
  #9  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:45 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I certainly don't. Maybe those assholes (Paul and Buchanan) are contradicting themselves, but I'm not. I think Netanyahu sucks. I also think Paul and Buchanan suck. If all three like Gabbard, then that's 3 marks against her, by my judgment.
The contest is still early on. There is much more for all of us to learn.


https://fpif.org/more-aipac-than-j-s...oreign-policy/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...-2020.amp.html

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-02-2019 at 09:48 AM.
  #10  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:47 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
In any case does anyone care to answer the question? What is acceptable crossover appeal? Being liked by Kristol and Brooks for you foreign policy positions or being liked by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan for your foreign policy positions? Neither?
I would consider both to be marks against a candidate, at least on the issues. At present, I consider Democrats based on two criteria -- issues and chances of beating Trump. On chances of beating Trump, being praised by such folks could well be helpful. I'll certainly admit that I think Gabbard would have a good chance to beat Trump (not sure how much better or worse than various other Democrats). I just think that she's so odious on issues and rhetoric (relatively speaking) that she's near the bottom of my list.
  #11  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:58 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Chief concern with Gabbard seems to be the Assad stuff. Definitely being criticized for being too dovish by most Dem detractors.
  #12  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:12 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Chief concern with Gabbard seems to be the Assad stuff. Definitely being criticized for being too dovish by most Dem detractors.
Coziness with Assad is not necessarily dovishness.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #13  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:49 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,404
Yes, she'll appeal to authoritarians, but the pro-authoritarian faction is already pretty well locked up by Trump. I don't think there are very many people out there saying "I want an authoritarian, but one a little less extreme than Trump". Well, other than WillFarnaby.

I suppose that she might manage to pull in some of the pro-war crowd, though, since she's more pro-war than Trump is.
  #14  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:50 AM
blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Coziness with Assad is not necessarily dovishness.
Dovishness is not necessarily coziness with Assad.
  #15  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:57 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Being against US military involvement in Syria is dovishness. This is some of the strongest plea coppage and spin I’ve seen going on here.
  #16  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:00 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Yes, she'll appeal to authoritarians, but the pro-authoritarian faction is already pretty well locked up by Trump. I don't think there are very many people out there saying "I want an authoritarian, but one a little less extreme than Trump". Well, other than WillFarnaby.

I suppose that she might manage to pull in some of the pro-war crowd, though, since she's more pro-war than Trump is.
Authoritarians criticize drug warriors, indentured servitude, and crooked cops in your world?

Gabbard is against the current wars Trump supports in Afghanistan and Yemen. Where does she seek war where he doesnít?
  #17  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:02 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Being against US military involvement in Syria is dovishness. This is some of the strongest plea coppage and spin Iíve seen going on here.
Plenty of Democrats are against military involvement in Syria -- but they haven't gone out of their way to cozy up to Assad. So they don't get the intra-party heat that Gabbard does. Thus demonstrating that it's not about opposition to military action in Syria -- it's about the specific things Gabbard has said and done that are generally unique within the party.
  #18  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:22 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Plenty of Democrats are against military involvement in Syria -- but they haven't gone out of their way to cozy up to Assad. So they don't get the intra-party heat that Gabbard does. Thus demonstrating that it's not about opposition to military action in Syria -- it's about the specific things Gabbard has said and done that are generally unique within the party.
They haven’t gone out of their way to do anything to end involvement. Those Dems that talk about Syria all want or wanted more involvement. A few are better than Gabbard on this particular issue, but none among them are running for president. The preferred crossover candidates are much worse than Gabbard on Syria as was Obama and Clinton.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-02-2019 at 11:23 AM.
  #19  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:27 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
They havenít gone out of their way to do anything to end involvement. Those Dems that talk about Syria all want or wanted more involvement. A few are better than Gabbard on this particular issue, but none among them are running for president. The preferred crossover candidates are much worse than Gabbard on Syria as was Obama and Clinton.
AFAICT, Sanders and Warren are consistently anti-war, on Syria and elsewhere.
  #20  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:28 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
People who want a Democrat that most Democratic and progressive voters don't like are going to like someone like Gabbard... but that's not an electorate that's going to get someone nominated by the Democratic party.
  #21  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:30 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Still no answer to the question. Some Dems want crossover appeal. What form should that crossover appeal take?
  #22  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:31 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
AFAICT, Sanders and Warren are consistently anti-war, on Syria and elsewhere.
Sanders and Warren have no crossover appeal. Read the OP. They are the progressives in this race.
  #23  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:32 AM
sps49sd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
...Pat Buchanan said to dump Bolton for Gabbard. She is popular with libertarians who hate Trump like myself, and even those who are ok with him. She was liked by Bannon....
I don't care who Buchanan likes, and I really don't care what Bannon thinks about anything.

But I could live with her, sure, and probably vote for her over Trump. I don't know much about her except for the obvious Harris attack, the Assad thing, and she's Miss Photogenic this cycle.
  #24  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:34 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
People who want a Democrat that most Democratic and progressive voters don't like are going to like someone like Gabbard... but that's not an electorate that's going to get someone nominated by the Democratic party.
Right. People want an antiwar Democrat. Being antiwar disqualifies you in the Dem primary.
  #25  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:34 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,974
I get that she might have some crossover appeal but aside from that, what other kinds of appeal does she have? She's a 38 year old representative with absolutely no executive experience that I can see in her resume. While her military service is admirable it was in the medical corps of the army national guard. What evidence do we have that she's qualified to run the largest organization in the world? Every argument against Obama for being inexperienced or "just a community organizer" can also levied against Gabbard, except even he had a much stronger CV regarding his law background and a senate seat vs a house seat. She also lacks a lot of Obama's other qualities.

Compared to someone like Jay Inslee, who might not have crossover appeal but has a ton of executive experience, why would I vote for Gabbard? Because Inslee might be slightly more hawkish?
  #26  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:35 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Still no answer to the question. Some Dems want crossover appeal. What form should that crossover appeal take?
I'd love a Democrat who appealed to every voter. I'd also like a pony made of gold and covered in chocolate.

Realistically, I'd like a candidate who appeals to and excites most Democrats and progressives, as well as a big chunk of independents -- probably middle and lower income folks who are disgruntled with both parties and angry at the wealthy and big corporations. I think Sanders and Warren have a chance to do that, and possibly others.
  #27  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:37 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I don't care who Buchanan likes, and I really don't care what Bannon thinks about anything.

But I could live with her, sure, and probably vote for her over Trump. I don't know much about her except for the obvious Harris attack, the Assad thing, and she's Miss Photogenic this cycle.
Is defeating Trump a top concern for you?

Do you believe a candidate with crossover appeal would be best equipped to defeat Trump?

If yes to both of these, why donít you care for whom your fellow countrymen might ditch Trump?
  #28  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:41 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I get that she might have some crossover appeal but aside from that, what other kinds of appeal does she have? She's a 38 year old representative with absolutely no executive experience that I can see in her resume. While her military service is admirable it was in the medical corps of the army national guard. What evidence do we have that she's qualified to run the largest organization in the world? Every argument against Obama for being inexperienced or "just a community organizer" can also levied against Gabbard, except even he had a much stronger CV regarding his law background and a senate seat vs a house seat. She also lacks a lot of Obama's other qualities.

Compared to someone like Jay Inslee, who might not have crossover appeal but has a ton of executive experience, why would I vote for Gabbard? Because Inslee might be slightly more hawkish?
Ok. Thatís a fair point. I donít think executive experience is as important as war, but I can see why some might. I bet Harris or Inslee could manage the hell out of a war compared to Gabbard, but thatís not the point for me.
  #29  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:42 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Right. People want an antiwar Democrat. Being antiwar disqualifies you in the Dem primary.
No it doesn't -- see Sanders and Warren, and possibly others, depending on your definition of "antiwar".
  #30  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:43 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'd love a Democrat who appealed to every voter. I'd also like a pony made of gold and covered in chocolate.

Realistically, I'd like a candidate who appeals to and excites most Democrats and progressives, as well as a big chunk of independents -- probably middle and lower income folks who are disgruntled with both parties and angry at the wealthy and big corporations. I think Sanders and Warren have a chance to do that, and possibly others.
Ok then you are going for purity over crossover appeal, gotcha. In the OP, I say that I understand the position. I donít understand the support of the crossover candidates like Biden or Harris, besides as the other poster said, they may be better experienced as managers.
  #31  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:46 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Ok then you are going for purity over crossover appeal, gotcha. In the OP, I say that I understand the position. I don’t understand the support of the crossover candidates like Biden or Harris, besides as the other poster said, they may be better experienced as managers.
You're still not reading my actual words -- one of the things I like about Warren and Sanders, in addition to their general opposition to the forever war, is their "crossover appeal" -- appealing to moderates and independents. Maybe you don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. I could be wrong, too. But WillF is not the arbiter of "crossover appeal" for everyone.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-02-2019 at 11:46 AM.
  #32  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:46 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No it doesn't -- see Sanders and Warren, and possibly others, depending on your definition of "antiwar".
I guess we will see who wins. The warmongers like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Harris, or someone else.
  #33  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:47 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You're still not reading my actual words -- one of the things I like about Warren and Sanders, in addition to their general opposition to the forever war, is their "crossover appeal". Maybe you don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. I could be wrong, too. But WillF is not the arbiter of "crossover appeal" for everyone.
Oh you are one of those under the delusion that Warren and Sanders have crossover appeal. Gotcha.
  #34  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I guess we will see who wins. The warmongers like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Harris, or someone else.
So you're more interested in taking shots at Democrats than in actually discussing political appeal. Gotcha! Thanks for making this clear.
  #35  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:49 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Oh you are one of those under the delusion that Warren and Sanders have crossover appeal. Gotcha.
Ha! If the last post didn't make it clear enough that this is about taking shots at Democrats, then thanks for making it even more crystal clear.
  #36  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:53 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
I wonder who WillF would prefer -- a thoroughly anti-war progressive like Warren or Sanders, or the incompetent, erratic, alternately pro-and-anti-war president we currently have? If a diehard libertarian would prefer the anti-war progressives, then that's pretty solid evidence that Warren and Sanders actually have some "crossover appeal". If this diehard libertarian would not prefer them, then that's pretty solid evidence that opposing wars is not the most important issue to WillF.

Which is it?
  #37  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:54 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So you're more interested in taking shots at Democrats than in actually discussing political appeal. Gotcha! Thanks for making this clear.
No Iím interested in seeing an antiwar president. Canít have one if they arenít nominated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Ha! If the last post didn't make it clear enough that this is about taking shots at Democrats, then thanks for making it even more crystal clear.
See above.
  #38  
Old 08-02-2019, 11:58 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
No Iím interested in seeing an antiwar president. Canít have one if they arenít nominated.
So join me in supporting Sanders and Warren. Doesn't mean you can't also support Gabbard... but when she inevitably drops out, pick one of the other two and vote for them.
  #39  
Old 08-02-2019, 12:38 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
I choose to support the active candidate that makes the most consistent, forceful and forthright case against war and militarism. Especially in regards to reinitiating Obama’s early attempts at rapprochement with Russia and withdrawing troops rapidly from the Middle East.

Right now nobody is close to Gabbard, and you’d have to be kidding yourself to deny this. The most consistent right wing voices against war and militarism and the most consistent leftist voices against war and militarism are singing the same tune about the Gabbard campaign. Criticism of her campaign is coming from corporate media shills financed by the war state, and people that have been duped by lying warmongers again and again.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-02-2019 at 12:39 PM.
  #40  
Old 08-02-2019, 12:39 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
No Iím interested in seeing an antiwar president. Canít have one if they arenít nominated.
So, you're not interested in a Democratic candidate that the Republicans can beat?
When did you switch parties?
  #41  
Old 08-02-2019, 12:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I choose to support the active candidate that makes the most consistent, forceful and forthright case against war and militarism. Especially in regards to reinitiating Obamaís early attempts at rapprochement with Russia and withdrawing troops rapidly from the Middle East.

Right now nobody is close to Gabbard, and youíd have to be kidding yourself to deny this. The most consistent right wing voices against war and militarism and the most consistent leftist voices against war and militarism are singing the same tune about the Gabbard campaign. Criticism of her campaign is coming from corporate media shills financed by the war state, and people that have been duped by lying warmongers again and again.
Pardon me, but WillF is not the arbiter of who is the most anti-war candidate. I disagree with you. Disagreeing with WillF does not make someone delusional.
  #42  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:03 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So, you're not interested in a Democratic candidate that the Republicans can beat?
When did you switch parties?
No Iíd like to see someone take down Trump and institute a more peaceful foreign policy.

I didnít switch parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Pardon me, but WillF is not the arbiter of who is the most anti-war candidate. I disagree with you. Disagreeing with WillF does not make someone delusional.
Itís like pulling teeth to get Sanders and Warren to say something antiwar. Either they are too caught up with frivolous stuff, or they think it wonít play in the primary.
  #43  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Itís like pulling teeth to get Sanders and Warren to say something antiwar. Either they are too caught up with frivolous stuff, or they think it wonít play in the primary.
Bernie's topline on the foreign-policy section of his website: "Together, as the forces of militarism have kept us engaged in unending wars, we have stood arm-in-arm to fight back. Weíre not going to invest in never-ending wars."

Also: "Allow Congress to reassert its Constitutional role in warmaking, so that no president can wage unauthorized and unconstitutional interventions overseas."

"Follow the American people, who do not want endless war."

Warren's foreign policy topline: "From endless wars that strain military families to trade policies that crush our middle class, Washingtonís foreign policy today serves the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of everyone else."

Also: "A strong military should act as a deterrent so that most of the time, we wonít have to use it. We must continue to be vigilant about the threat of terrorism, but itís time to bring our troops home Ė and make sure they get support and benefits theyíve earned."

And "That means cutting our bloated defense budget and ending the stranglehold of defense contractors on our military policy."

Took me all of 30 seconds. Doesn't seem like pulling teeth to me -- seems like the focus of their foreign policy is opposition to the forever war.
  #44  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:17 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Yes they have sections on their websites. Real Kucinichians they are.
  #45  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,948
So who would you prefer, WillF -- a thoroughly anti-war progressive like Warren or Sanders, or the incompetent, erratic, alternately pro-and-anti-war president we currently have, if that's what the general election comes down to?
  #46  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:21 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,593
The problem I have with Gabbard is that she is being dishonest about leaving the cult she grew up in. This suggests she is still in thrall of a nut, which is a bad trait in a president.
  #47  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:24 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,650
What cult?
  #48  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:42 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What cult?
Some offshoot of the Hari Krishnas. Weird stuff.

eta: More here. It's called The Science of Identity Foundation.

Last edited by steronz; 08-02-2019 at 01:45 PM.
  #49  
Old 08-02-2019, 01:51 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,650
And is there any evidence that she still follows this cult?
  #50  
Old 08-02-2019, 02:00 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And is there any evidence that she still follows this cult?
From the first article I linked:

Quote:
I then reached out to another staffer, who eventually said Tulsi would take questions on religious matters via email, at which point I sent a series of questions regarding Chris Butler, the Science of Identity, the beach gatherings to which Greg Martin had referred, her time in the Philippines, and when, precisely, Tulsi began to identify as Hindu. Tulsi replied with an email that declined to mention Hinduism, Butler, the Science of Identity, the gatherings, or the Philippines.
ďMy Ďreligion,í Ē she wrote, ďis my loving relationship with God, and the motivation that springs from that relationship to try my best to use my life in the service of humanity and the planet.Ē

But as late as 2015, in a video still up on YouTube, Tulsi publicly acknowledged her guru-dev to be Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Chris Butler.

No one I spoke to with personal experience of the group, including Tulsiís aunt, thought it possible that Tulsi Gabbard had somehow left Chris Butlerís sphere of influence, that her thirst for world peace and her persistent concerns about Islam were positions held independent of his counsel. ďI donít think that she is a bad person or in any way malicious,Ē says Koviak. ďButlerís agenda from way back in the í70s has always been to have a political hold in some way. Now he has realized his dream through Tulsi Gabbard.Ē Says Rama Ranson, who maintains the blog RamaRansonvsthecult.com, ďHer success is Butlerís success.Ē
Bolding mine. That's all I've found. She may be dodging the issue because she doesn't want to alienate her family, like the second link I posted suggests. Or she might still be in the cult. Here's the video.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017