View Poll Results: Who's your favourite candidate for the 2020 Democratic Primaries?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bernie Sanders.

    19 48.72%
  • Joe Biden.

    5 12.82%
  • Neither.

    15 38.46%
Page 29 of 116 FirstFirst ... 41920212223242526272829303132333435363738395479 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 580 of 2310

Thread: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

  1. #561
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Dd Tulsi gabbard say she wanted to decriminalise illegal immigration?
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  2. #562

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is a laughably delusional argument which is a regurgitation of the same hubristic rationale we've had to hear repeatedly since 9/11. Even if I believed that the US's involvement in Syria was predicated on the democratization of the region (which I don't) I would be forced to concede that it was naive in the extreme. The fact that the US's role has been far more limited and less unilateral than it was in Iraq is fundamentally irrelevant. No one is saying that Syria and Iraq are identical, they're making the point that the public reasoning for intervention is remarkably similar.
    In the words of your gal Tulsi, “this isn’t about what you or I believe.” Call me a liar all you want. Your tangential defenses of Gabbard’s positions don’t address them or their accuracy. The stated reasons for Tulsi’s opposition to US involvement in Syria are factually incorrect. Other Dem candidates have demonstrated principled opposition to direct attacks on the Assad regime. They managed to do it without regurgitating Russia/Assad propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    it seems that criticism of what Tulsi said is rather non-substantial and is based on assertion that anything that contradicts warhawk narrative is part of some kind of Russia/Iranian conspiracy.
    I haven’t seen any major outlets claim Tulsi is part of a conspiracy. If her clandestine trip to Syria proves anything, it’s that she’s perfectly capable of being a useful stooge all on her own.


    Her “position” on Syria is not “correct” or factual, and events have progressed far beyond her “Iraq 2.0” fiction screenplay in any case. The US has already waived the white flag for all intents and purposes under Trump, though we may drop some bombs every now and again to save face. Contrary to Tulsi/Russia/Assad’s “US is the problem” propaganda, the civil war rages on unabated.


    Iran/Russia will continue their campaign to pump Iranian gas through Syria in Russian pipelines, while Iran expands its jihadi militia network in the region. Assad was a Russian puppet even before the war, and there is zero chance they will allow him to step aside, even if he wants to. Assad is key to Russia’s broader strategy of propping up its zombie petro economy, and cementing Europe’s dependence on Russian energy to further damage the NATO geopolitical framework. Whether Qatar’s competing interests will hamper this plan is another matter, and Saudi is always a bit of a wildcard.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; August 03, 2019 at 04:13 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  3. #563
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Dd Tulsi gabbard say she wanted to decriminalise illegal immigration?
    No she didn't she opposes it for now.

  4. #564

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    In the words of your gal Tulsi, “this isn’t about what you or I believe.” Call me a liar all you want. Your tangential defenses of Gabbard’s positions don’t address them or their accuracy. The stated reasons for Tulsi’s opposition to US involvement in Syria are factually incorrect. Other Dem candidates have demonstrated principled opposition to direct attacks on the Assad regime. They managed to do it without regurgitating Russia/Assad propaganda.
    More inane prattling which adds nothing to the conversation, doesn't address the point it is allegedly responding to and serves only as yet another restatement of the baseless and refuted position which you started from.



  5. #565

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    In the words of your gal Tulsi, “this isn’t about what you or I believe.” Call me a liar all you want. Your tangential defenses of Gabbard’s positions don’t address them or their accuracy. The stated reasons for Tulsi’s opposition to US involvement in Syria are factually incorrect. Other Dem candidates have demonstrated principled opposition to direct attacks on the Assad regime. They managed to do it without regurgitating Russia/Assad propaganda.
    Nah, they themselves regurgitated CNN/MSNBC propaganda.
    I haven’t seen any major outlets claim Tulsi is part of a conspiracy. If her clandestine trip to Syria proves anything, it’s that she’s perfectly capable of being a useful stooge all on her own.


    Her “position” on Syria is not “correct” or factual, and events have progressed far beyond her “Iraq 2.0” fiction screenplay in any case. The US has already waived the white flag for all intents and purposes under Trump, though we may drop some bombs every now and again to save face. Contrary to Tulsi/Russia/Assad’s “US is the problem” propaganda, the civil war rages on unabated.


    Iran/Russia will continue their campaign to pump Iranian gas through Syria in Russian pipelines, while Iran expands its jihadi militia network in the region. Assad was a Russian puppet even before the war, and there is zero chance they will allow him to step aside, even if he wants to. Assad is key to Russia’s broader strategy of propping up its zombie petro economy, and cementing Europe’s dependence on Russian energy to further damage the NATO geopolitical framework. Whether Qatar’s competing interests will hamper this plan is another matter, and Saudi is always a bit of a wildcard.
    She is a more or less famous politician, so it makes sense that she represents a more or less sensible side of US politics by visiting the place. At least that would clear off the bad taste from when McCain went there to hang out with terrorists that were still praised as "freedom fighters" in American propaganda.

    Saying that her stance isn't factual won't make it so. It was obvious that before Russia and Iran saved the day, US, under its previous administration, was going to pull another Libya. Not to mention that the reason why civil war in Syria is prolonged is because of US providing aid to jihadists for years.
    Regardless of role of Russian and Iran in the region (which pretty much anyone unbiased would acknowledge as less harmful then that of US and its puppets/allies there), the primary factor here is taxpayer interests. Average American Joe isn't really affected by what happens in Middle East, whether it is under Israel and Saudis, or Russia and Iran, or it disappears altogether. But America's LARP as "world policeman" happens at the expense of his tax dime.

  6. #566

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    California Removes Arrest Reports From Kamala Years

    https://freebeacon.com/politics/cali...-kamala-years/

    Typical liberalism. More and more like the Soviet Union

  7. #567
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,753

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    California Removes Arrest Reports From Kamala Years

    https://freebeacon.com/politics/cali...-kamala-years/

    Typical liberalism. More and more like the Soviet Union
    I hope you understand this is the exact opposite of liberalism. Authoritanism, yes. Liberalism (the opposite of Authoritarianism) no. USSR was not liberal, it was authoritarian.

    Freedom of information, which that crappy measure in Commiefornia undermines, is a core aspect of Liberalism. However, because USA is not USSR the information is still there but it is harder to access. All in all, some buttholes in Harris' former office obfuscated the convictions and tried to hide them under a blanket. You can still lift the blanket but it is harder.
    Last edited by alhoon; August 04, 2019 at 02:49 AM.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  8. #568

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Do you really think I don't?
    Why do you think they call illegal immigrants ''undocumented''?

    Here's what you are not understanding. A large chapter of what these people do in humanities is simply to re-word things so that they appear positively to people who otherwise would oppose their ideas. Communists these days call themselves liberals simply because if they called themselves communists, nobody would for vote them, especially in the US. They have been playing this game for decades. There's nothing of classical liberalism left in today's liberals.

    So, how do you counter social constructionism? You tarnish their words and send them back to square one. I noticed this because one argument in favour of ''multiculturalism'' used to be ''cultural enrichment''. As soon as the right made it target of mockery and used cultural enrichment for the various acts of terrorism, gang rapes etc by immigrant, it fell out of favour. So, if communists want to hide behind the term liberalism, so be it. We'll tarnish it and make it as toxic as communism is.

    I get that you might be worried that classical liberal ideas like free speech get tarnished with it. They won't. Main reason, today's liberals oppose free speech in favour of thought crime (hate speech). The idea is safe. Classical liberals have also long moved to the term libertarian, meaning we can simply create our new terminology to define our ideas.

    Liberalism, however, in its today's form, needs to be destroyed.

    Unless you want to live in a world like this:
    https://twitter.com/Osama_BongLaden/...66307578212352

    That's the Democratic Socialist convention and white men have to identify themselves as ''person of privilege'' before talking. It's hilarious how South park is always 2-3 years ahead and comedy becomes reality.

  9. #569
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,753

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Those people are progressives, they are not communists.
    The progressive\leftwing part of USA, that people illogically call Liberals, are obviously not communists even if they are not classical liberals.

    For example, the progressives of USA do not want state owned means of production, prohibition of luxuries, 5-year plans that decide that Texas would be drilling oil while Wyoming would be mining coal with certain quotas to be met etc. All in all, they are not communists not liberals.
    Yes, sure, you may find 1 guy that supports those. You may even find 10. But out of the 10% or so that are in the left\progressive part of the democratic party, perhaps 0.2% share such ideas.

    Trying to tarnish their reputation has a few nice names: Propaganda. Libel. And it's what they use to make things like "Make my country great again" as toxic.

    The terms "Libertarian" and "Liberal=democrat" are clearly USA only things. IIRC you are not from USA neither am I. In my country when we say "φιλελεύθερος (liberal)" in a political context we don't mean what you mean. And at least with the people abroad that I talk with and they are not Americans, they have not adopted the USA way of speech.
    All in all, no, the "liberals" you decry are just the American definition of the word. Sure, it is good for a thread about USA politics. Whatever I think of your agenda to "You tarnish their words and send them back to square one. " (I completely disagree and I think it does a disservice to anyone with a brain), it is not served by using the terms out of context.
    Last edited by alhoon; August 04, 2019 at 06:11 AM.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  10. #570

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Saying that her stance isn't factual won't make it so. It was obvious that before Russia and Iran saved the day, US, under its previous administration, was going to pull another Libya. Not to mention that the reason why civil war in Syria is prolonged is because of US providing aid to jihadists for years.

    If that’s your position, then there is no scenario in which anything the US does could be anything less than nefarious. I would argue operating from the premise set by Russia/Assad propaganda should be problematic in and of itself for a US Presidential candidate. Even if given a pass for this, Gabbard’s falsehoods on Syria indicate a disturbing level of naïveté if not ignorance, given she is far from the only noninterventionist candidate.


    Gabbard’s infamous “skepticism” of Assad’s chemical weapons use, comparing it to faulty US intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, further indicates her willingness to espouse false narratives advanced by a specific faction in Syria. She continued to push the idea long after the UN and OPCW had produced the proof she claimed she didn’t have.


    She asserts that Assad is fighting jihadists, therefore Assad “must remain in power to protect human rights in Syria.” This is a key Russia/Assad talking point that only holds any water in an alternate reality where Assad didn’t destabilize his own country to cling to his brutal dictatorship, creating a failed state, to the point where jihadists became a force in Syria in the first place. She continues to push this false narrative to date.


    Other candidates, like Bernie Sanders, advocate to continue an Obama-lite policy of using diplomatic pressure to “convince” Iran and Russia to stop giving Assad the means with which to continue the war he initiated against his own people. That’s the difference between being “non-interventionist” versus being plain old wrong.
    Regardless of role of Russian and Iran in the region (which pretty much anyone unbiased would acknowledge as less harmful then that of US and its puppets/allies there), the primary factor here is taxpayer interests. Average American Joe isn't really affected by what happens in Middle East, whether it is under Israel and Saudis, or Russia and Iran, or it disappears altogether. But America's LARP as "world policeman" happens at the expense of his tax dime.

    If the U.S. involvement in Syria can be faulted at all for the course of the conflict, it’s precisely because Obama was respectful of constitutional and international norms and processes championed by noninterventionism. His administration’s lack of clear strategy resulted in anemic support for domestic rebel factions, and is a major reason why they lacked the resources and cohesion needed to hold territory against Assad, Russia, and jihadists simultaneously.


    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/imag..._Jihadists.pdf


    Your assertion that Russian and Iranian interests are better for the region, no matter what those interests might be, is based solely on your belief that the US is engaged in some kind of nebulous evil plan. That certainly lends itself well to Gabbard’s talking points on Syria, but I don’t see how that improves upon their lack of accuracy.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; August 04, 2019 at 08:46 AM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  11. #571

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Those people are progressives, they are not communists.
    The progressive\leftwing part of USA, that people illogically call Liberals, are obviously not communists even if they are not classical liberals.

    For example, the progressives of USA do not want state owned means of production, prohibition of luxuries, 5-year plans that decide that Texas would be drilling oil while Wyoming would be mining coal with certain quotas to be met etc. All in all, they are not communists not liberals.
    Yes, sure, you may find 1 guy that supports those. You may even find 10. But out of the 10% or so that are in the left\progressive part of the democratic party, perhaps 0.2% share such ideas.

    Trying to tarnish their reputation has a few nice names: Propaganda. Libel. And it's what they use to make things like "Make my country great again" as toxic.
    No. Politics is driven by activists, activists are the most ideologicall extremes and this is why the Democratic party has candidates talking about lecturing white women on white privilege; because that's what the activist base wants. The ''More in Common'' research shows that these are roughly 8% of the US population. The problem with the moderate majority is that they don't care enough to push their opinion.


    Quillete had a nice article on political moderates:
    https://quillette.com/2018/07/02/pol...tes-are-lying/

    Also, communists tarnished their own side with their own actions, so it's not libel. Libel is accusing them of things they didn't do. Now, if communists decide to hide behind the term liberalism to push their agenda, and equality of outcome is communism, then exposing their game is not libel. They simply did it themselves.


    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    The terms "Libertarian" and "Liberal=democrat" are clearly USA only things. IIRC you are not from USA neither am I. In my country when we say "φιλελεύθερος (liberal)" in a political context we don't mean what you mean. And at least with the people abroad that I talk with and they are not Americans, they have not adopted the USA way of speech.
    All in all, no, the "liberals" you decry are just the American definition of the word. Sure, it is good for a thread about USA politics. Whatever I think of your agenda to "You tarnish their words and send them back to square one. " (I completely disagree and I think it does a disservice to anyone with a brain), it is not served by using the terms out of context.
    What's the ''liberal elite'' in Europe? It's from Merkel to Timmermans. The center right-center-center-left. Their policies are basically the same: supranational globalism, open borders, suppression of standard of living of the masses to fight climate change, ethnic and gender quotas to pretend they care about ''under privileged minorities''. There's zero difference from US liberals under that aspect. Post-Trump and Brexit vote there has been an increase in homogeneity of thought among them and they are essentially indistiguishable. They also regularly take advantage of the woke crowd because it's an easy way to look morally superior while at the same time hurting their own fellow countrymen. All the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post

    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/imag..._Jihadists.pdf

    Your assertion that Russian and Iranian interests are better for the region, no matter what those interests might be, is based solely on your belief that the US is engaged in some kind of nebulous evil plan. That certainly lends itself well to Gabbard’s talking points on Syria, but I don’t see how that improves upon their lack of accuracy.
    A quick look at who funds the Atlantic Council would tell you why it's not a reliable source. The fact that it's the main organization behind Facebook censorship basically seals it. Just saying...
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; August 04, 2019 at 09:31 AM.

  12. #572

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    If that’s your position, then there is no scenario in which anything the US does could be anything less than nefarious. I would argue operating from the premise set by Russia/Assad propaganda should be problematic in and of itself for a US Presidential candidate. Even if given a pass for this, Gabbard’s falsehoods on Syria indicate a disturbing level of naïveté if not ignorance, given she is far from the only noninterventionist candidate.


    Gabbard’s infamous “skepticism” of Assad’s chemical weapons use, comparing it to faulty US intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, further indicates her willingness to espouse false narratives advanced by a specific faction in Syria. She continued to push the idea long after the UN and OPCW had produced the proof she claimed she didn’t have.


    She asserts that Assad is fighting jihadists, therefore Assad “must remain in power to protect human rights in Syria.” This is a key Russia/Assad talking point that only holds any water in an alternate reality where Assad didn’t destabilize his own country to cling to his brutal dictatorship, creating a failed state, to the point where jihadists became a force in Syria in the first place. She continues to push this false narrative to date.


    Other candidates, like Bernie Sanders, advocate to continue an Obama-lite policy of using diplomatic pressure to “convince” Iran and Russia to stop giving Assad the means with which to continue the war he initiated against his own people. That’s the difference between being “non-interventionist” versus being plain old wrong.

    As I said above, just because she acknowledges the fact that America's role in the Middle East as of late is more negative then that of Iran and Russia (at least judging by the end-result), doesn't mean she is some kind of agent for the latter. Its just the stance of latter is more realistic. The whole notion of Assad "fighting war against his own people" sounds like direct copy-paste from warhawk talking points and doesn't really have much relation to reality, where Assad's top military brass consists of "oppressed" groups, while "freedom fighters" turned out to be garden variety terrorist groups that were far worse on local population then Syria's legitimate government. If anything, by divorcing from the neocon-neoliberal warhawk policy she is helping her country come to terms with its negative past and create a plan for the future.
    If the U.S. involvement in Syria can be faulted at all for the course of the conflict, it’s precisely because Obama was respectful of constitutional and international norms and processes championed by noninterventionism. His administration’s lack of clear strategy resulted in anemic support for domestic rebel factions, and is a major reason why they lacked the resources and cohesion needed to hold territory against Assad, Russia, and jihadists simultaneously.


    https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/imag..._Jihadists.pdf


    Your assertion that Russian and Iranian interests are better for the region, no matter what those interests might be, is based solely on your belief that the US is engaged in some kind of nebulous evil plan. That certainly lends itself well to Gabbard’s talking points on Syria, but I don’t see how that improves upon their lack of accuracy.
    Nonintervention you say? Weird how it was quite different when it came to Libya (which was also justified by false premise of "evil dictator killing his own people" with no actual evidence being presented). Obama's initial plan was do the same thing in Syria, but thankfully Russians intervened first and prevented the disaster.

  13. #573
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,753

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    No. Politics is driven by activists, activists are the most ideologicall extremes and this is why the Democratic party has candidates talking about lecturing white women on white privilege; because that's what the activist base wants. The ''More in Common'' research shows that these are roughly 8% of the US population. The problem with the moderate majority is that they don't care enough to push their opinion.
    No, politics is driven by politicians and politicians are driven by voters. That's why pandering to the squeaky wheel is going to get all those candidates of the Democrat party in trouble. Many of them are thinking like you, forgetting that the moderates decide the elections, and thus moderates set the agenda.
    All activists are trying to do is to push their fringe ideologies more to the mainstream, so that they would be potentially accepted down the road.


    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Also, communists tarnished their own side with their own actions, so it's not libel. Libel is accusing them of things they didn't do. Now, if communists decide to hide behind the term liberalism to push their agenda, and equality of outcome is communism, then exposing their game is not libel. They simply did it themselves.
    Saying that USSR communists did very bad things is not libel. Saying that USA's democrats are communists in new clothes is libel, because they are not. It's very very inaccurate. Communists are not hiding behind the term "liberal", they hate liberals. ANTIFA are attacking pro-liberal politicians etc.
    Do you really think communists are pro free market for example?
    Communists are against globalism in its current form. The current form of globalism neoliberals are pushing for is free-market based; multinationals without borders. This leads to the multinationals and banks gaining huge power creating a quasi-corpocracy.
    One of the main things communists fight against as they don't want the power to be in the hands of bankers and corpocrats.

    Globalists\neoliberals have little in common with communists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    What's the ''liberal elite'' in Europe? It's from Merkel to Timmermans. The center right-center-center-left. Their policies are basically the same: supranational globalism, open borders, suppression of standard of living of the masses to fight climate change, ethnic and gender quotas to pretend they care about ''under privileged minorities''. There's zero difference from US liberals under that aspect. Post-Trump and Brexit vote there has been an increase in homogeneity of thought among them and they are essentially indistiguishable. They also regularly take advantage of the woke crowd because it's an easy way to look morally superior while at the same time hurting their own fellow countrymen. All the same.

    A quick look at who funds the Atlantic Council would tell you why it's not a reliable source. The fact that it's the main organization behind Facebook censorship basically seals it. Just saying...
    Exactly, Merkel is a good example of a European Liberal. Her policies and agenda are very different with communism. Furthermore, Merkel's faction is conservative. They were against gay marriage for example etc.
    Merkel's "supernational" globalism is centered on the paradigm of: Europe bends the knee to German Hegemony in a supernational - for them - globalism while business and capital travel freely around the world (with German companies benefiting from the German Hegemony). I.e. it's "globalism that serves her country and screws everyone else turning them to protectorates and yesmen".
    Suppression of the standard of living of the masses is obviously not her policy nor her target. Germany's Greens Environmental policies also have nothing to do with liberalism; it's environmentalism. Not to mention that personally I agree there should be drastic measures taken to fight climate change. Regardless of whether I agree with Environmentalists on that or not (I agree with the sentiment but not the methods they push), it is not tied to liberalism.

    Ethnic and gender quotas? I am not aware of any such European policies that push large gender quotas and I am not aware of any ethnic quotas in European Union. I am aware of progressives ruining academia by refusing to fund research project that don't have at least a token number of women, but they do that without any rules supporting it, arbitrarily more or less because they are buttholes.

    Here is a part of the Gender Equality law of EU when it comes to gender quotas:
    "According to the ECJ a measure that would give automatic and unconditional preference to one sex is not justified in this respect. In the case of recruitment and promotion, targets and/or quotas can only be accepted if each and every candidature is the subject of an objective assessment. "


    Compare the above with the insanity of the Progressives in USA that try to turn a simple rude insult to a hate-crime or foam at the mouth in the idea of a 7-years-old being dressed as an Indian... while they want to decriminalize illegal immigration and other crap.
    Or, in the case of Sanders, his deep aversion to Free Market and globalism. Sanders is not a Globalist, he's far closer to a communist for example. The "Liberal Elite" of Europe, the Center Right, are against Unions and pro free market and multinationals.
    Sanders on the other hand is of the belief of "too big to fail is too big to exist" and wants to break the back of banks while he wants the damn Unions to run everything.

    All in all Basil... if you are worried about Illegal immigration, the democrats are not your cup of tea. If you are worried about multinationals and banks running your country... then some of the USA democrats are what you should support. Half the democrats didn't want the Globalist TTIP and it failed. Obama, a globalist, wanted it. Many of the current leftwings in the Democrat party were against it.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  14. #574

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    No, politics is driven by politicians and politicians are driven by voters. That's why pandering to the squeaky wheel is going to get all those candidates of the Democrat party in trouble. Many of them are thinking like you, forgetting that the moderates decide the elections, and thus moderates set the agenda.
    All activists are trying to do is to push their fringe ideologies more to the mainstream, so that they would be potentially accepted down the road.
    Whether anybody likes it or not a lot of extreme ideas get to be bandied about because that's when the more extreme voices of either party get to be loud. There's a lot of blood-letting over these ideas when the parties are finding a new candidate, and there's literally no better example of 2016 New York. Sure, the momentum was Hillary, there was literally no way for him to catch up. But Bernie hadn't technically lost. And he started shivving her much more harshly. And she still won New York, by miles. And that's the night she got all the delegates to push her over. In primaries it depends on who's still running and what they decide their issues are to set the battleground. Bernie never tried the South, he slaughtered Clinton in the Northwest, and so on. And when the debates, as the rules play them out, settle out some of the runners we'll find out just what the Primary Battleground is and just what the actual extreme politics are for this election. Just to remind you, we're still five months away from god damn Iowa.

    When the General Election comes around, most of these states are known quantities and not really battleground states. California is important, typically in the primary, unless Harris is still around and doing so well as to snap up 65% of the Delegates that the rest are getting breadcrumbs. Typically a candidate can always get some number quantifiably worthwhile in California. But Harris actually is known to the voters there and we'll see how much she flips the table there. When the General comes around California is the coastal flyover. Hell, the West Coast is a flyover. Yes, Trump might do a rally in key districts to try to win 50 or 51 back after 2018's House Slaughter, but he's not getting California.

    So really, the problem with the discussion here is you're treating the Primary like it's the General. You can get some foreshadowing of the problems that can crop up depending on what they do in the Primary. But really? Remember all the crap Trump pulled in the Primary, and remember what happened and how close and how down to the wire the General was. It will never be a guarantee. Anybody who says it's a guarantee I will just point to two facts. Clinton was confident enough in her win that she booked her evening in a auditorium with a god damn glass ceiling and it's mother frakking documented that Trump thought he was going to lose until he was told he won.

    But let's be clear on one thing. You want to be President, first step, get your god damn Party to say yes. Then clean up that mess and run the General.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  15. #575

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    As I said above, just because she acknowledges the fact that America's role in the Middle East as of late is more negative then that of Iran and Russia (at least judging by the end-result), doesn't mean she is some kind of agent for the latter. Its just the stance of latter is more realistic. The whole notion of Assad "fighting war against his own people" sounds like direct copy-paste from warhawk talking points and doesn't really have much relation to reality, where Assad's top military brass consists of "oppressed" groups, while "freedom fighters" turned out to be garden variety terrorist groups that were far worse on local population then Syria's legitimate government. If anything, by divorcing from the neocon-neoliberal warhawk policy she is helping her country come to terms with its negative past and create a plan for the future.

    Assad was warring against his own people before the US got involved, no matter how badly Tulsi/Assad/Russia would rather frame the affair as a “US regime change war.” Legitimate governments don’t need to start a civil war to maintain their “legitimacy” in the face of mass protests after failing to deliver promised reforms.


    The US isn’t the reason Assad’s dictatorship was under threat from mass unrest, regardless of whether you want to argue that subsequent support for the rebels was unsuccessful in the long run. Russian and Iranian support for his dictatorship is the only reason he still has any ability at all to continue the war, let alone remain in power. That’s not a “warhawk talking point,” it’s a historical fact of the civil war. Assad is the cause of the problem, and therefore cannot be part of a permanent solution to said problem, regardless of anything the US does or doesn’t do. Gabbard has gone out of her way to argue that Assad must remain in power, and makes her case using the same false propaganda, under the guise of “anti-interventionism.” Here’s hoping her schtick doesn’t catch on outside pro-Russia, pro-Iran internet circles.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; August 04, 2019 at 02:08 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  16. #576

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    Assad was warring against his own people before the US got involved, no matter how badly Tulsi/Assad/Russia would rather frame the affair as a “US regime change war.” Legitimate governments don’t need to start a civil war to maintain their “legitimacy” in the face of mass protests after failing to deliver promised reforms.


    The US isn’t the reason Assad’s dictatorship was under threat from mass unrest, regardless of whether you want to argue that subsequent support for the rebels was unsuccessful in the long run. Russian and Iranian support for his dictatorship is the only reason he still has any ability at all to continue the war. That’s not a “warhawk talking point,” it’s a historical fact of the civil war. Assad is the cause of the problem, and therefore cannot be part of a permanent solution to said problem, regardless of anything the US does or doesn’t do. Gabbard has gone out of her way to argue that Assad must remain in power, and makes her case using the same false propaganda, under the guise of “anti-interventionism.” Here’s hoping her schtick doesn’t catch on outside pro-Russia, pro-Iran internet circles.
    Assad wasn't "warring against his own people", Syrian government was fighting a war against foreign-sponsored insurgencies, which consisted of jihadists foreigners from all over the world, from other parts of Middle East to Central Asia , Europe and even East Asia. Just because US and its puppets/allies backed and sponsored armed terrorists within Syrian borders, doesn't mean government is illegitimate. Again, what you are saying is just typical talking points from US government at the time, which were proven to have little bearing with reality.
    Assad isn't the cause of the war, as it is mostly attempts by foreign countries to subvert Syria, and Assad refused to allow them to do that voluntarily. Its not "false propaganda", it is reality. Gabbard seems to be one of the few sane politicians who accept reality, where America is the problem and not the countries that it constantly de-stabilizes and invades. It is a good thing that anti-interventionism is becoming a mainstream in American politics, despite all the interventionist propaganda and its falsehoods.

  17. #577

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Assad wasn't "warring against his own people", Syrian government was fighting a war against foreign-sponsored insurgencies, which consisted of jihadists foreigners from all over the world, from other parts of Middle East to Central Asia , Europe and even East Asia. Just because US and its puppets/allies backed and sponsored armed terrorists within Syrian borders, doesn't mean government is illegitimate. Again, what you are saying is just typical talking points from US government at the time, which were proven to have little bearing with reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Assad isn't the cause of the war, as it is mostly attempts by foreign countries to subvert Syria, and Assad refused to allow them to do that voluntarily. Its not "false propaganda", it is reality. Gabbard seems to be one of the few sane politicians who accept reality, where America is the problem and not the countries that it constantly de-stabilizes and invades. It is a good thing that anti-interventionism is becoming a mainstream in American politics, despite all the interventionist propaganda and its falsehoods.
    Literally every sentence in your post is false. The fact that no reputable source corroborates your conspiracy is not evidence of the conspiracy.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; August 04, 2019 at 02:28 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  18. #578

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio_Italica View Post
    [COLOR=#454545][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]
    Literally every sentence in your post is false. The fact that no reputable source corroborates your conspiracy is not evidence of the conspiracy.
    If by "reputable source" you mean American/Saudi/Israeli propaganda from early 2010s, then sure. My post reflects reality of the situation: Assad is far from perfect, but he is the least of all evils. Even current US government in certain shape and form acknowledged this - hence why US is leaving Syria and Iraq and why Trump banned CIA from collaborating with anti-Assad terrorists in Syria. At this point it is quite clear that Assad is there to stay. US is better off leaving Middle East altogether and leave it for Iran and Russia to stabilize the region.

  19. #579
    irontaino's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    4,612

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    You can't trust Saudi/American/Israeli propaganda, only Russian/Ba'athist/Iranian propaganda is reputable.
    Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
    Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude

    A.B.A.P.

  20. #580
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,753

    Default Re: USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Assad is far from perfect, but he is the least of all evils.
    He is the least of all evils because NATO didn't simply wipe out that butthole along with Gaddafi eaaaarly on, before a decade of civil war had radicalized everyone and before ISIS showed up. Back then there were alternatives. Also not perfect alternatives but much better choices than the 2015 choice of Assad, Al Qaeda or ISIS. Russia may have been angry and complained but back in 2010-2011 they would have played ball and follow the line in the end.
    On the other hand, if NATO would do the same crap they did in Libya, that the French were out before Gaddafi's corpse was cold and UK followed within a weekend instead of shouldering their responsibility and staying around for a decade (yes, paying the blood tax) then perhaps they shouldn't have meddled from the very beginning; extract concessions from Assad that he would treat his people better and help him stabilize Syria in 2009. Back when Assad was still soooomewhat reasonable and despite oppression Syria was a place one could live in, back then in 2010, before Assad unleashed the Shabiha and other paramilitaries.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •