Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I mean, people like Gabbard (note: she also has a history on LGBT rights that can be called mixed if you are being very charitable) and aforementioned Senator should be targeted with primaries when possible. But if its between them and a Republican....
Well, I don't know if I could bring myself to vote for an Assad apologist, I do have limits to my pragmatism.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.On a different note, did anyone else bother to watch the debate between Sanders and Cruz?
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.@De Marquis
As was stated above, Gabbard is a stooge of Assad and dismissed all those fighting against him as "terrorists". She's also a grifter and con-artist with a history of homophobic activism and whose staff still includes many of the people who worked for her and her father on said homophobic campaigns despite her supposed conversion. Steve Bannon regards her as someone he and Trump can work with, and a meeting between her and orangutan-in-chief was arranged soon after he took office.
But she endorsed Sanders so the same "radical leftists" who accused Clinton and even Obama of being DINOs and sellouts regard her as a progressive champion.
@rationalinsanity
She's from Hawaii. There's a decent chance that her next Republican opponent will manage to be a better person than she is, given how liberal leaning the state as a whole skews.
And let's face it—if we're going to nail Trump for defending Putin we have to hold her accountable for her Assad worship.
edited 7th Feb '17 7:06:20 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@Tulsi 'I love Assad' Gabbard: Sooner or later, Gabbard will get put in a position where she has to directly defend some of Trump's more odious policies without an escape hatch, and that should be it for her one way or another; either getting formally denounced by the DNC or simply slipping on the Republican jacket she had stashed away and being exactly who she has always been, only now unapologetically. The only reason she has evaded this long is being a representative, so 1. she is not part of the confirmations, and 2. with such a huge lead in the House the GOP has had no cause to get her to flip. That will not last forever.
edited 7th Feb '17 7:29:35 PM by ViperMagnum357
The hypocrisy from some of the Bernie or Bust types is mind boggling. Clinton's not progressive enough for them, but Gabbard is? Of course, these are also the same people who think that a Republican controlled White House is somehow better for everything their chosen candidate stands for than a Clinton White House would be.
I'm so tired.
Potemkin village syndrome? There is, unfortunately, a long history of left-wingers who become seduced by authoritarian regimes. That said, we should judge her, and everyone else in Congress, on their voting record.
edited 7th Feb '17 7:27:56 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.@Viper Magnum 357: Or, c) Because she's a populist hack, she'll simply start denouncing Trump, the Republicans, Assad and Putin when it best benefits her, and she can claim that her previous positions were wrong and that she's changed.
From what I've seen, depending on the individual, support for Gabbard can stem from just one issue:
Gabbard was at Standing Rock.
Clinton was not.
Should it be that simple? I certainly don't think so. I personally can't stand single-issue voters (due to my exposure to the pro-life crowd, who will condone absolutely anything as long as you oppose abortion). But I know what country we live in, and it's one where they may not even care about an issue at all.
edited 7th Feb '17 7:38:09 PM by Eschaton
Jill Stein is blaming "corporatist" Democrats for DeVos' confirmation
.
Serves me for not paying attention. I'd read all the posts up to this point, including that one that mistakenly thought there was a vote on De Vos when it was really just the Filibuster (even read the correction and the after-posts about how all Dems voted against her) and spaced on everything after the mistaken claim Manchin had okayed De Vos.
The one good thing about De Vos is that the Democrats were united against her. Tomorrow, I'm calling to thank my senators, and that I hope they keep up the fight.
40% of Americans want Trump impeached
, up from 35% the previous week. Only 48% would be outright against an impeachment.
At this rate, Trump is guaranteeing a One-Term Presidency, if not an impeachment when the Dem's get the Senate (whenever that happens, hopefully in 2 years).
You think senators will benefit any from out-of-state support?
I can't actually thank Isakson and Purdue for standing tall and proudly ignoring thousands of constituent calls begging them not vote De Vos in.

Tulsi Gabbard visited Syria secretly and met with Assad
.
Logan Act violations asides, she is now spouting apologism for the minds that brought you this
.
Un. Fucking. Acceptable.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot