Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

Color me cynical about any group taking money from corporate Democrats.

Ok...?

I mean don't know what else to say.

 

[Mael]

Reagan himself lost to Ford. Nixon was the previous primary loser who got elected. IIRC all of recent history's former primary losers who went on to win the presidency were all Republicans.

So Hillary has a chance * instantrimshot*

 

[Planx]

You gonna answer my question or no?

Did you miss the part that said,



So yah, the vast majority do not support a single payer approach.

That's not what the numbers say, though. Leaving the numbers un-analyzed is pretending elections happen in a vacuum. The numbers say that 38% of people do not believe that government is responsible for healthcare and 52% of all people believe the government is responsible for healthcare. Of that 52% more than half already believe that single payer is the best solution. The 38% of people who do not believe that the government is responsible for healthcare will literally never vote for your candidate with a compromise position because there's no compromising with that.

So you're left with more than half of potential voters for your candidate supporting this policy and less than half opposed. Am I supposed to believe that in this mix of people who support both private and government options to health insurance that they will abandon en-masse the candidate supporting a single-payer position for an opponent who does not believe that healthcare is a government concern/human right? Don't be ridiculous

And of course Obama was the first POTUS I voted for, what do I sound like a non-millennial? I figured that was rhetorical since I made it kind of obvious what my history was.

Republicans overwhelmingly control Congress and even in a wave election in 2018 that isn't going to get us anywhere near single-payer. The point is it is exceptionally easy to promise the sky, the truth of politics is that it isn't gonna happen and promising something you have no chance of doing is rather bullshit.

So the Republicans are going to implement all of the crap they promised right? And not doing so will have dire consequences at the polls with their fanatical base, right? Cause my bet is that their base will still turn out for them in 2020 when they've spent 4 years bickering and not getting much done and the only salvation the Democratic party will have is keeping the fires stoked and turnout high

 

[CazTGG]

So Hillary has a chance * instantrimshot*

Hillary 2020: Still With Her.

Uhmm no. Just her and her daughter.

In for Tulsi Gabbard 2020

How about someone who's not an Islamophobe?

 

[eBay Huckster]

In for Tulsi Gabbard 2020

unironically hoping she runs because i want to see what happens with her internet cheerleading squad when she inevitably drops out after finishing seventh in iowa

 

[Mael]

So the Republicans are going to implement all of the crap they promised right? And not doing so will have dire consequences at the polls with their fanatical base, right? Cause my bet is that their base will still turn out for them in 2020 when they've spent 4 years bickering and not getting much done and the only salvation the Democratic party will have is keeping the fires stoked and turnout high

I dunno ask the GOP for 2006 when they got punished by their base for doing stupid shit.
It also depends on if the president is able to peddle his BS with the same efficiency as he did last year.
Obama wasn't able to do everything in 2008 and Dems stayed home in 2010, he still won 2012 by quite the margin.
Don't rule out the Orange, he managed to win once he can do it again, regardless of Congress and Senate.

Hillary 2020: Still With Her.

<trailer voice>This time as an R</trailer voice>

 

[Lord_Byron28]

Does anyone else recall that Romney was laughed away after he lost and stayed hidden for years? Republicans have nothing else to talk about except the boogeymen they created in Obama and Clinton. Think it has less to do with the gender and more with the unique situation she was in, in terms of Trump, Russia and the propaganda machines. Of course sexism is a factor but I believe racism is a bigger problem in this country and Obama was elected.

 

[ZeroX03]

Kibblesmith is always a great read

This thread was not

 

[jWILL253]

I think Hillary should run again. *shrug*

If the next batch of candidates come up and she's still considered to be the better candidate by the voting base, why not? I'm not a neanderthal with a short attention span who needs someone to give me a reach around with every other statement. I also don't care for "new blood" for the sake of it (that's how we got Trump in the first place). I just want the best, most qualified person for the job.

I also think Sanders should run again. He's not an automatic "yes" vote for me, but if the voting base considers him the most qualified to run the oval office, so be it.

I always like the lack of any self-awareness in these threads. Blaming Hillary for losing an election that was literally stolen from her isn't so much announcing to the world that you're a strawman; rather, it's announcing to the world that you're a moron who doesn't need to be taken seriously in any context.

 

[shawnbuddy]

ITT: Satire Isn't Funny If it Takes Aim at Me!

 

[Father_Brain]

Claiming that the election was "stolen" is just as ludicrous as claiming that external factors had no role whatsoever.

 

[God Dayumm]

How about someone who's not an Islamophobe?

I wish, but all of them support Israel

 

[xxracerxx]

Claiming that the election was "stolen" is just as ludicrous as claiming that external factors had no role whatsoever.

What are you trying to say here?

I wish, but all of them support Israel

Joke?

 

[excelsiorlef]

I wish, but all of them support Israel

How about not someone who is far more conservative than she needs to be given that she represents fucking Hawaii

 

[jackissocool]

If you don't like Clinton you hate women, amirite

 

[jWILL253]

Claiming that the election was "stolen" is just as ludicrous as claiming that external factors had no role whatsoever.

Do we or do we not have a federal investigation on foreign powers hacking our election?

 

[Beerman462]

If you don't like Clinton you hate women, amirite

Yeah, that shit is toxic and a good way to divide the Democratic party. I didn't feel strongly one way or the other on Clinton. I knew I didn't want Trump. My wife straight up didn't like Hilary, but she thinks Benghazi was her fault even though I have explained how it's not. Her sister voted for Trump, which is Hilarious, because her 13 year old son was like "Why does that Cheeto have to be our President?" and I said cause your mom voted for him. He was legit shook.

 

[KHarvey16]

If you don't like Clinton you hate women, amirite

That's a poor interpretation of the author's point.

 

[Not]

If you don't like Clinton you hate women, amirite

I'd like to see the Venn Diagram though

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yeah, that shit is toxic and a good way to divide the Democratic party. I didn't feel strongly one way or the other on Clinton. I knew I didn't want Trump. My wife straight up didn't like Hilary, but she thinks Benghazi was her fault even though I have explained how it's not. Her sister voted for Trump, which is Hilarious, because her 13 year old son was like "Why does that Cheeto have to be our President?" and I said cause your mom voted for him. He was legit shook.

Not what the satire piece is saying at all.

 

[IrishNinja]

Ding Ding. After the election I think it has turned into a exceptional vocal Bernie base who wants to see her move to Mars. Along with a subset of people who voted for Hillary who accept her defeat, her responsibilities as a failed candidate including the external factors but would ultimately like to see her maintain a minor backseat role in the party while raising money.

You won't find any Yas Queen have my sword, run again, you can do it! crowd.

for real...i don't think ive seen a single person here push for her to run again, but these threads pack in the same tired voices acting like it's an everyday thing

Umm. The same Clinton apologists still dominate political discussion on this forum.

umm....where? end of last/early this year was packed with self-righteous bernie bros, threads like this happen once in a while & pull a few people out to say maybe she's not the literal worst dem candidate that's been. if that equates an apologist, i don't know what to tell you.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Lol!!!

I get it. It's a satire of a satire piece.

 

[Nerdkiller]

Uhmm no. Just her and her daughter.

In for Tulsi Gabbard 2020

*COUGH*

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.

Gabbard has since done a 180, citing her military service in the Middle East as the impetus for her conversion to social liberalism.

***

She effected a similar about-face on abortion, even receiving an endorsement from EMILY’S List during her 2012 congressional run despite her history of opposing reproductive rights.

And why not? Gabbard was only twenty-three when she expounded her socially conservative views, and it’s not unheard of for people’s thinking to evolve.

But suspicion of Gabbard lingers. Her state Democratic Party LGBT caucus, for instance, openly distrusts her, and backed her Democratic primary opponent in 2016. When questioned why the LGBT caucus, which had actually supported her three years earlier, had turned against her, the chairman cited two things. One was her less-than-stellar answers to a questionnaire the LGBT Caucus had sent. The other was a 2015 interview with Ozy, in which she confirmed that her personal views on gay marriage and abortion hadn’t changed, just her view on whether the government should enforce its vision of morality.

---

There’s nothing wrong, of course, with expressing empathy for the soldiers who are sent to fight, lose limbs, and die in wars of choice launched by their political leaders. The suffering they and their families endure is heartbreaking, especially considering that many join the military because they lack any other economic opportunities. And the money spent on wars abroad would surely be better used on infrastructure at home.

But Gabbard’s almost singular focus on the damage these wars inflict domestically, and her comparative lack of focus on the carnage they wreak in the countries under attack, is troubling. It is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans. (Gabbard’s brand of anti-interventionism has even received praise from former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who called for her to be named secretary of state.)

***

Gabbard was subsequently one of three Democrats — the others being New Jersey senator Cory Booker and Maryland congressman John Delaney — who secured an invitation to AEI’s annual closed-to-the-press retreat, where she hobnobbed with the likes of Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, Mike Pence, Rupert Murdoch, the DeVoses, and a host of other major conservative figures. At the AEI’s urging, she had earlier spoken at the Halifax International Security Forum, an annual gathering of national security wonks sponsored by Lockheed Martin, Canada’s Department of National Defence, and others.

Another reason Gabbard started receiving applause from the Right was her very public skepticism of the Iran deal.

***

Breitbart gleefully quoted her in headlines expressing “many” and “great” concerns over the deal as it was being negotiated. On the day the agreement was finalized, she issued a statement saying, “We cannot afford to make the same mistake with Iran that was made with North Korea,” citing North Korea’s abrogation of the Agreed Framework agreement it had signed in 1994. When Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his unprecedented speech to Congress in March 2015 in an attempt to torpedo the deal, Gabbard didn’t join the significant number of Democrats who boycotted the speech. She attended it.

---

In February 2015, Gabbard had the chance to question Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Vincent Stewart. She asked him (while clearly fishing for a particular answer) about the debate over “how this ideology, how this motivation, must be identified” and what “common elements” existed among different Islamic terrorist groups, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram. She then went on Fox and reported that Stewart had “identified very clearly that it is this radical Islamic ideology that is fueling” these groups.

But Gabbard had heavily distorted what Stewart actually said. While he did call ISIS “a radical ideology that must be countered with a moderate ideology,” he also pointed out that the common elements that had produced such groups were “ungoverned states, weak government institution, economic instability, poverty.”

This was par for the course for Gabbard, who regularly used her TV appearances to brush off, even mock, alternative explanations for terrorism. After Kerry gave a speech at Davos stressing the importance of acknowledging the various drivers of extremism — noting that some extremist fighters “are lured by basic, material considerations” like “the promise of regular meals, a paycheck,” while others are motivated by the chance “to escape boredom” and “be lured by a false sense of success” — Gabbard tore into him on CNN.

“This is completely missing the point,” she said, calling it a “huge mistake” to think “that somehow, okay, well, look if we give them $10,000 and give them a nice place to live, that somehow they’re not going to be engaged in this fighting.” She cited Osama bin Laden as an example, a “multi-millionaire who left his mansions, went and lived in the desert because of this radical ideology.” She reappeared on CNN a month later, denying that “if we just go in and alleviate poverty, if we go in and create jobs and increase opportunity,” it would help solve the problem.

Naturally, it wasn’t long before she appeared on Bill Maher’s program, where the two bonded over their mutual distrust of “Islamic extremism” and their disagreement with Kerry’s comments. After agreeing with Maher that it was “crazy” Obama didn’t want to use the two magic words, Gabbard reiterated her point: “Give them a big house, give them a skateboard, send them on their way. You think that’s going to solve the problem? It’s not.”

***

Gabbard’s hardline stance carried over to the subject of refugees. She was one of forty-seven Democrats to join the House GOP in passing the SAFE Act in 2015, which would have added extra requirements to the already onerous refugee vetting process and effectively ground to a halt the admission of Syrian and Iraqi refugees into the country. In a statement, Gabbard claimed she was voting for the bill to save the refugee program.

Two months before that, however, she had introduced a resolution calling for the United States to prioritize religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East — namely, Christians and Yezidis — when granting refugee status. “These persecuted religious minority groups must be our first priority,” she said. In essence, her position — throwing more roadblocks in front of Syrian refugees, while making an exception for Christians — is the same as that of the Trump administration, whose original refugee ban exempted “religious minorities.”

So it was little surprise that shortly after the election, Trump held talks with Gabbard — a meeting set up by Steve Bannon, a longtime admirer of the Hawaii congresswoman. Sources told the Hill at the time that Bannon “loves her” and “wants to work with her on everything,” and that “she would fit perfectly” in the administration because “she gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff.” (Gabbard’s name was conspicuously missing from the letter 169 House Democrats signed last November calling for Trump to rescind Bannon’s appointment.)

---

As her flirtation with Trump and Bannon shows, Gabbard’s hardline stance on terrorism and Islam tends to leave her with questionable friends.

***

“President el-Sisi has shown great courage and leadership in taking on this extreme Islamist ideology, while also fighting against ISIS militarily to keep them from gaining a foothold in Egypt,” Gabbard said, urging US political leaders to “recognize President el-Sisi and his leadership” and “stand with him in this fight against . . . Islamic extremists.” Some of the Sisi government’s fantastic accomplishments in this fight include killing a group of Mexican tourists and quite possibly torturing and murdering an Italian PhD student.

But perhaps Gabbard’s closest friend on the world stage is India’s Hindu nationalist prime minister Narendra Modi. It’s an ideal match in many respects — not because the two happen to share a faith (Gabbard is the first Hindu American in Congress), but because they both harbor noxious attitudes toward Muslims.

***

But most appalling was his role in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in the western state of Gujarat, which left one thousand people dead, nearly eight hundred of whom were Muslims. Modi was the state’s chief minister at the time and has long been accused of allowing the riots to happen, with a former senior police officer testifying in 2011 that Modi said the night before the riots that Muslims needed to be taught a lesson.

Despite all of this, Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. “He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,” she said of Modi in 2014.

---

Sanders’s seal of approval shouldn’t be taken as the final word on Tulsi Gabbard. After all, should we really champion a presidential candidate who could easily have been slotted into a Trump cabinet?

All I'm saying is you shouldn't call out Hillary on flip flopping on some of her past statements while at the same time elevating a (so called in this case) progressive candidate as an example of what the party should be going forward.

 

[Spartancarver]

I can't remember the last time someone lost a primary and then ran in the next cycle. It's unheard of!

because she and her staff ran a terrible campaign that lost to a sexist, race bating, lying pig by failing to take him seriously as a challenger

It's amazing that she can be less popular than Trump and yet her apologists will still desperately cling to the "all criticism of HRC is misogyny" strawman.

Give Kibblesmith credit for knowing his audience, at least.

that's literally the only argument being made by this "satire," from the headline on down

Oh man. Wounds are still fresh. This article needs a trigger warning

 

[Zap Rowsdower]

I don't intend this to be mean, but I think that is because they came of age during Obama's presidency. That is the type of politics and POTUS they are used to. They expect that type of individual and I have some bad news...you don't see that in politics, especially on a national level.

Not to mention our education system is shit and most don't even know how our government works, so you have people screaming about burning everything down when they have no idea what to replace it with.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Gabbard's simply a great example of how assholes, con artists and conservatives can get far by latching on to the cult of Bernie. It produces a field that turns off people's brains. See also: passionate defenses of ethical trainwreck Alan Grayson even as he transparently used the Bernie movement to prop up his own fundraising. Bernie doesn't do much to kick these people out, seemingly operating under the Trump rule of "If you say nice things about me you're good." Although to be fair he drew the line at Martin Shkreli.

 

[Monocle]

I think Hillary should run again. *shrug*

If the next batch of candidates come up and she's still considered to be the better candidate by the voting base, why not? I'm not a neanderthal with a short attention span who needs someone to give me a reach around with every other statement. I also don't care for "new blood" for the sake of it (that's how we got Trump in the first place). I just want the best, most qualified person for the job.

I also think Sanders should run again. He's not an automatic "yes" vote for me, but if the voting base considers him the most qualified to run the oval office, so be it.

I always like the lack of any self-awareness in these threads. Blaming Hillary for losing an election that was literally stolen from her isn't so much announcing to the world that you're a strawman; rather, it's announcing to the world that you're a moron who doesn't need to be taken seriously in any context.

Yes but setting aside the thoroughly established fact that Hillary would have won the election without Russian interference and Comey's email shenanigans, and that she still won the popular vote in spite of sustained targeted media manipulation to derail her campaign, how much is she the suckiest failure ever to lose a stacked election?

And a follow-up question: did she smile too much or not enough during her campaign? Let's discuss why the answer is "both."

 

[Neoweee]

Gabbard's simply a great example of how assholes, con artists and conservatives can get far by latching on to the cult of Bernie. It produces a field that turns off people's brains. See also: passionate defenses of ethical trainwreck Alan Grayson even as he transparently used the Bernie movement to prop up his own fundraising. Bernie doesn't do much to kick these people out, seemingly operating under the Trump rule of "If you say nice things about me you're good." Although to be fair he drew the line at Martin Shkreli.

HA Goodman and Tim Canova are still spreading Seth Rich conspiracy theories.

The cult of Bernie is way too willing to canonize utter dipshits.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Yes but setting aside the thoroughly established fact that Hillary would have won the election without Russian interference and Comey's email shenanigans, and that she still won the popular vote in spite of sustained targeted media manipulation to derail her campaign, how much is she the suckiest failure ever to lose a stacked election?

And a follow-up question: did she smile too much or not enough during her campaign? Let's discuss why the answer is "both."

Let's discuss how her voice, because she's a female human, is "shrill" compared to other politicians.

HA Goodman and Tim Canova are still spreading Seth Rich conspiracy theories.

The cult of Bernie is way too willing to canonize utter dipshits.

Bernie is the best thing that ever happened to Ha Ha Goodman.

 

[JWiLL]

Tout as unquestioned truth a sleazy cash-in tell-all that's been debunked everywhere BUT Fox News (and similar right wing sources like Donald Trump's syphillitic brain) and then run away when someone questions you. I see where this is going.

Multiple, disparate sources have described her as such.

Fact: Many, many politicians are essentially 2-faced sociopaths. It's not something unique to Hillary Clinton, she just happens to have been around for so damn long and in prominent positions that there's more info on her.

But yeah, if someone working for Clinton debunks stuff, then we'll take their word instead.

 

[Monocle]

Let's discuss how her voice, because she's a female human, is "shrill" compared to other politicians.

Let's talk about her uncouth laugh, where she stretches her jaws until she resembles a starving hyena preparing to feed, and then emits a sort of guttural harumph that disturbs the humours and effects a pronounced malaise in every unfortunate listener.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Why the fuck do these threads still happen. Nothing is ever accomplished and usually leads to either side being labeled in an attempt to squash them.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Multiple, disparate sources have described her as such.

Fact: Many, many politicians are essentially 2-faced sociopaths. It's not something unique to Hillary Clinton, she just happens to have been around for so damn long and in prominent positions that there's more info on her.

But yeah, if someone working for Clinton debunks stuff, then we'll take their word instead.

The burden to list these multiple, disparate sources is on you, so we can evaluate them.

In the only one you've put forward so far, one person who used to work for Clinton, with a clear profit motive, pimped a book through right-wing media with some dubious and sensational claims (like Hillary giving Bill a black eye) that many other people who used to work for or knew the Clintons said were not true and were extremely unlikely for this guy to have been involved in because he was a low-level uniformed officer. But despite that person being in no more objective position than the people with a different account that outnumbered him, and standing to gain a great deal from making Hillary look bad at just the right moment, you treated him like the shining light of truth and dismissed everyone else.