Good comparison.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
Bruh Teddy is many things but incompetent is not one of them. You only need to look at the way he ran his campaign for evidence.
She's right.
Are you interested in her based on your shared religious views ?
Not voting is just not on, make your vote count.Awful comparison. Ted Cruz is an awful person. Gabbard is progressive and has a bright political future.
Yes. You've asked me this before, fishy mate. I'll vote for the progressive Dem or vote Green if the Dems are all twats. Or not vote at all (looking very likely at this point). I mean, just imagine the primaries if Mark Zuckerberg, Kanye, the Rock and Oprah all run.
Zuck polls very badly (thank god). Not sure about the rest.
Edit: meant to reply to nikhil
I knew I was going to be asked that at some point. It's nice that there is a Hindu in Congress, but no, that's not why I'll support her if she runs. She's anti war, was always against the Iraq war, supported Bernie, is progressive and in my opinion was correct regarding the Syrian civil war. She recognised that the threat was not Assad but IS and the other groups.
Oprah with msm support.
I'm just kidding, this is original.
I'm just kidding, this is original.
That's fair enough. I was casually thinking of the general trend. By the time Obama was elected he was worshipped by many as some kind of superhero that had nothing to do with policies. It was all down to his image and his speeches.
I'm just not surprised we've reached a point in time that has Oprah being seriously touted as the potential President of the U.S. I mean you don't get more famous than her. In fact, I'm struggling to understand how she would be that bad considering what's going on currently.
So many Dems in Congress shunned Bernie when he ran but she endorsed him early on. Well done Tulsi, the progressives will always remember! Just like the North always remembers.
Ok
For supporting a losing candidate ?
Oh dear, people actually still believe this Trump lie?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895
Did Hillary also somehow control the EIGHT other agencies who approved the deal?
Oh my my
I haven't researched the uranium deal to Russia but what about Clinton using her power as SoS to accept huge sums of money from foreign governments for her foundation? And using the state department to grant favours and give arms and stuff to those very same countries? Will everyone respond to those charges with an eye roll as well?Oh dear, people actually still believe this Trump lie?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895
Did Hillary also somehow control the EIGHT other agencies who approved the deal?
Was going to say this isn't a bad idea, but:
https://www.reddit.com/r/theroom/comments/4b069d/tommy_wiseau_appears_to_endorse_trump_for/
You are tearing me apart, Tommy!
Sounds like Trump is your candidate not Tulsi Gabbard.I haven't researched the uranium deal to Russia but what about Clinton using her power as SoS to accept huge sums of money from foreign governments for her foundation? And using the state department to grant favours and give arms and stuff to those very same countries? Will everyone respond to those charges with an eye roll as well?
Pardon me? Do you want all 100 senators and 435 reps and the executive to be Protestant white men? Rich elite WASPs? I don't get your post.Oh my my
Everything has to be about religion?Pardon me? Do you want all 100 senators and 435 reps and the executive to be Protestant white men? Rich elite WASPs? I don't get your post.
I thought you were interested in policy and not religion ?Pardon me? Do you want all 100 senators and 435 reps and the executive to be Protestant white men? Rich elite WASPs? I don't get your post.
I am. I'm not supporting her on the basis of her religion, but because of her views. I merely stated that it's nice to have a Hindu in Congress. RDCR07 quoted that bit of my post like it's a bad thing to say that it's nice to have a person of such and such religion as a Congress member? Even when I said in the same post that it's not the reason why I support her.
Not sure Nikhil, but looks like you are supporting Tulsi Gabbard primarily because she was one of the first to declare for Sanders. If having not supported the Iraq war is a basic minimum for the next presidential candidate, then realistic choices from Dems would be extremely narrow or look for people with no experience in politics.
That says a lot about the party...
Iraq (generally non-interventionist instincts), single-payer, campaign finance reform are the bare minimum. College tuition, min wage, etc is one step down from these. I like Warren but I'm doubtful about her foreign policy. Gillibrand is a total pro-Bush-in-2007 hawk though she's been (suspiciously?) rebranding recently.
There's only 1 person, name starting with B, who I'd feel confident about wrt foreign policy. Of course, that name is
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Barbara Lee.
Also, there is no litmus test about supporting or not supporting the Iraq War that any candidate has to pass in order to be viable. Few if anyone in the Dem base care about that any more. They care about actual tangible domestic policy related to healthcare, economics, and education - all of which can still be easily achieved by maintaining a muscular foreign policy abroad.
Single payer is the basic minimum for me. That's the litmus test. Overturning Citizen's United to get money out of politics is a plus. But universal healthcare is the most important issue.
It is a nice irony that the Republican frontrunner was KOd by the eventual candidate in part by attacking him and his family on their Iraq warmongering, while the Dem candidate was a vocal supporter.
Probably because the eventual candidate was all bluster with no said stance on the subject and was able to deflect both ways. This Iraq -Hillary war monger is like the gun control activists crying Sanders is anti-gun control. It's just not true, but it's only good for arguments and the intercept.com
Trump ran against Dubya, not his dad and not against Jeb's non existent foreign policy
I'd say that is a decent expectation. Would you vote for Oprah if she stands for single payer?
It's called diplomacy. Sometimes it helps to gauge the perspective of the other side.
Makes a refreshing change from simply shutting down all relations and opting to instead back an insurgency riddled with radical extremists. Unless you of course consider Hillary Clinton taking money from the Qataris or John McCain posing with head-choppers in Syria to be taking the position of moral decency.
Is Gabbard still questioning whether Assad was responsible for the sarin attacks? I forget her position.
Gabbard would be a catastrophe and a nod to the Trump-crowd. Please don’t.
You may need a refresher on what diplomacy is. She isn't authorized to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the US government. That's the President's job. Therefore going there as a political stunt to promote an anti-American policy could only result in her getting used as a propaganda tool for Assad regime. There's no diplomacy involved there.
Something we can agree on.
Yep. She's really a vile POS.
I don't care about Bernie's gun stances, for this argument let's assume he was indeed Ted Cruz.
Hillary supported Iraq, was the catalyst in Libya, pushed for Syria, tacitly supported a coup in Honduras, and she took advice from Kissinger, produced a split among neocons, half of whom lined up behind her. Those together are very consequential actions with a trend towards intervention. Instead of saying fakenews, you could start pointing out why she is *not* a hawk.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27...-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html
https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/hillary-the-hawk/
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/de...ght_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/hillary-clinton-really-loves-military-intervention/
And yet almost every single congressman/woman happily accepts glorified bribes and all expenses paid trips to Israel in order to fire up pro-Israeli sentiment. Yet we paint that as some sort of diplomatic consensus.
It doesn't hurt to have a balanced perspective sometimes, even if it means talking to those who harbour adversarial sentiments. That's pretty much the essence of diplomacy.
Personally these attacks on Hillary smack of sexism. You don't hear similar arguments made for Bush 41 or Bill Clinton, both who were just as forward leaning in their foreign policies. It also happens to be long standing US policy so its rather questionable that she should be singled out.
- Status