2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome)

[GONYK]

What i don't get... Is that from what I watched, the agenda from the right is "if you want safety, more police, controlling the riots, stop illegals, more freedoms, etc. you need to elect Trump".

Which I don't get because... Trump is already in office now. He has the power. Even if I was on the right, I would say Trump failed me. Especially now because it's like he's running a campaign for election, not re-election.

Well, that is the cognitive dissonance of the Trump message. Everything he says he will stop is happening under his watch.

He's running against Trump's America.

[Clyde_Style]

What i don't get... Is that from what I watched, the agenda from the right is "if you want safety, more police, controlling the riots, stop illegals, more freedoms, etc. you need to elect Trump".

Which I don't get because... Trump is already in office now. He has the power. Even if I was on the right, I would say Trump failed me. Especially now because it's like he's running a campaign for election, not re-election.

Well, that is the cognitive dissonance of the Trump message. Everything he says he will stop is happening under his watch.

He's running against Trump's America.

Favorite TV Show: The Gorilla Channel
Favorite Movie: Fight Club

[Jeff Van Gully]

She went to war against her own party. Not in the AOC style I call BS kind of critiques, but actual war.

She has well known political affiliations with Assad and Modi.

Most of her attacks are similar or identical to the same memes generated by Russian troll farms and the Alt Right.

If you want to see how FOS she is, read this:

Gabbard voted "present" when the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump in December 2019, saying, "I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."

She's duplicitous and opportunistic and has zero loyalty to the Democratic Party so she doesn't get a seat at the table. Tough chit

tulsi's blatant homophobia also wasn't going to play.

i believe she went back and, not only addressed her older statements, but has changed her mind on a lot of things.


I understand why she used to think a different way - not all, but a lot of people brought up in extremely religious households are taught to believe certain things, and it's hard for them to change them.


she has since changed her stances on gay people, gay marriage, etc. she didn't do it for clout or poll numbers, either. i can respect people who have the ability to change their minds as they grow as a person. to call her homophobic, i feel, is unfair

i absolutely respect the ability to change. i fully support people who HAVE changed. that's one of the best things to see in life. and those people can have great impact.

i just happened upon this fascinating medium piece from an LGBT dem on tulsi's homophobic past. long story short, it says she's walked the walk re: LGBTQ with her voting record. it also has respect for people who have been hurt by tulsi's previous actions.

https://medium.com/@kathrynrosefisher/im-lgbt-here-s-where-the-media-is-wrong-on-tulsi-gabbard-bb0fde008d16

i remember her statements. i hope they were genuine too. i am open to listening and giving her a shot if she's genuine. i think it takes a long time to earn back trust. but i am happy to see tulsi has done more than i thought.

[Capn'O]

What i don't get... Is that from what I watched, the agenda from the right is "if you want safety, more police, controlling the riots, stop illegals, more freedoms, etc. you need to elect Trump".

Which I don't get because... Trump is already in office now. He has the power. Even if I was on the right, I would say Trump failed me. Especially now because it's like he's running a campaign for election, not re-election.

Well, that is the cognitive dissonance of the Trump message. Everything he says he will stop is happening under his watch.

He's running against Trump's America.

They should make another Trump vs. Trump debate. And by "they" I mean "the internet."

There's also a cognitive dissonance with trying to use the Crime Bill against him. Biden **** you with the Crime Bill but also he's soft on crime. The whole thing is a damn circle.

[Clyde_Style]

tulsi's blatant homophobia also wasn't going to play.

i believe she went back and, not only addressed her older statements, but has changed her mind on a lot of things.


I understand why she used to think a different way - not all, but a lot of people brought up in extremely religious households are taught to believe certain things, and it's hard for them to change them.


she has since changed her stances on gay people, gay marriage, etc. she didn't do it for clout or poll numbers, either. i can respect people who have the ability to change their minds as they grow as a person. to call her homophobic, i feel, is unfair

i absolutely respect the ability to change. i fully support people who HAVE changed. that's one of the best things to see in life. and those people can have great impact.

i just happened upon this fascinating medium piece from an LGBT dem on tulsi's homophobic past. long story short, it says she's walked the walk re: LGBTQ with her voting record. it also has respect for people who have been hurt by tulsi's previous actions.

https://medium.com/@kathrynrosefisher/im-lgbt-here-s-where-the-media-is-wrong-on-tulsi-gabbard-bb0fde008d16

i remember her statements. i hope they were genuine too. i am open to listening and giving her a shot if she's genuine. i think it takes a long time to earn back trust. but i am happy to see tulsi has done more than i thought.

I get that people can choose to forgive Tulsi for having been rabidly anti-gay.

I also get that Joe Biden has stated that he is committed to ending systemic racism. But according to some he is pretty much the evil status quo. He is very forthcoming and seems genuinely interested in meeting the moment and getting it right.

So I wonder how it is that some people want to forgive Tulsi, but not a guy like Biden. Coming from a homophobic, islamicphobic background is not worse than Biden making some mistakes on past legislation?

Lately, I see lots of selective reasoning that excuses one person, but villifies another. It lacks consistent logic, thus appears to be emotionally driven which is not a healthy way to select whom you vote for.

[br7knicks]

What i don't get... Is that from what I watched, the agenda from the right is "if you want safety, more police, controlling the riots, stop illegals, more freedoms, etc. you need to elect Trump".

Which I don't get because... Trump is already in office now. He has the power. Even if I was on the right, I would say Trump failed me. Especially now because it's like he's running a campaign for election, not re-election.

[Jeff Van Gully]

tulsi's blatant homophobia also wasn't going to play.

Not to mention her softcore Islamophobia. I’m always amazed that when I come across the 5 people that voted for her on the Primary they ignore her glaringly obvious red flags and paint a picture of a totally different person.

what has she said that is islamophobic? i legit don't know.

i wasn't aware of islamophobia on her part. but i just looked it up and saw a breakdown of what may be meant by that. sounds like she might have fallen in line with some of the conservative-led incendiary language against muslims when addressing terrorism:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-policies

Gabbard initially excited the left because she was an outspoken economic progressive and a veteran who objected to American intervention abroad. She was also the first Hindu member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi called her an “emerging star”; MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow predicted she was “on the fast track to being very famous.”

But in the following years, Gabbard staked out foreign policy positions that shocked her allies. She joined Republicans in demanding that President Obama use the term “radical Islam.” She was the member of Congress most willing to advocate for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. She dubbed herself a “hawk” on terrorism. Reporters documented worrying ties to anti-LGBTQ groups — including one run by her father — and anti-Muslim Hindu nationalists.

Gabbard has defenses of these positions, some more persuasive than others. She seems to have sincerely changed her mind on LGBTQ issues, defends her position on terrorism as a necessary response to the serious threat from jihadism to the United States, and argues that her outreach to the Syrian government is part of an effort to open up space for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

aside from this kind of thing, tulsi struck me as a textbook moderate who had sneaky potential for broad appeal. definitely the kind of democrat who is more palatable to conservative areas. i saw she had solid support in southern states. regardless of how her campaign went, i think she did a pretty good job getting herself out there. i wouldn't count her out long-term just yet.

[Jeff Van Gully]

i believe she went back and, not only addressed her older statements, but has changed her mind on a lot of things.


I understand why she used to think a different way - not all, but a lot of people brought up in extremely religious households are taught to believe certain things, and it's hard for them to change them.


she has since changed her stances on gay people, gay marriage, etc. she didn't do it for clout or poll numbers, either. i can respect people who have the ability to change their minds as they grow as a person. to call her homophobic, i feel, is unfair

i absolutely respect the ability to change. i fully support people who HAVE changed. that's one of the best things to see in life. and those people can have great impact.

i just happened upon this fascinating medium piece from an LGBT dem on tulsi's homophobic past. long story short, it says she's walked the walk re: LGBTQ with her voting record. it also has respect for people who have been hurt by tulsi's previous actions.

https://medium.com/@kathrynrosefisher/im-lgbt-here-s-where-the-media-is-wrong-on-tulsi-gabbard-bb0fde008d16

i remember her statements. i hope they were genuine too. i am open to listening and giving her a shot if she's genuine. i think it takes a long time to earn back trust. but i am happy to see tulsi has done more than i thought.

I get that people can choose to forgive Tulsi for having been rabidly anti-gay.

I also get that Joe Biden has stated that he is committed to ending systemic racism. But according to some he is pretty much the evil status quo. He is very forthcoming and seems genuinely interested in meeting the moment and getting it right.

So I wonder how it is that some people want to forgive Tulsi, but not a guy like Biden. Coming from a homophobic, islamicphobic background is not worse than Biden making some mistakes on past legislation?

Lately, I see lots of selective reasoning that excuses one person, but villifies another. It lacks consistent logic, thus appears to be emotionally driven which is not a healthy way to select whom you vote for.

i try not to go too far down that road because i don't know who is doing both. i would challenge folks specifically when i observed it, and addressed it broadly once i was able to trace a pattern. but that's the career researcher in me talking.

[br7knicks]

tulsi's blatant homophobia also wasn't going to play.

i believe she went back and, not only addressed her older statements, but has changed her mind on a lot of things.


I understand why she used to think a different way - not all, but a lot of people brought up in extremely religious households are taught to believe certain things, and it's hard for them to change them.


she has since changed her stances on gay people, gay marriage, etc. she didn't do it for clout or poll numbers, either. i can respect people who have the ability to change their minds as they grow as a person. to call her homophobic, i feel, is unfair

i absolutely respect the ability to change. i fully support people who HAVE changed. that's one of the best things to see in life. and those people can have great impact.

i just happened upon this fascinating medium piece from an LGBT dem on tulsi's homophobic past. long story short, it says she's walked the walk re: LGBTQ with her voting record. it also has respect for people who have been hurt by tulsi's previous actions.

https://medium.com/@kathrynrosefisher/im-lgbt-here-s-where-the-media-is-wrong-on-tulsi-gabbard-bb0fde008d16

i remember her statements. i hope they were genuine too. i am open to listening and giving her a shot if she's genuine. i think it takes a long time to earn back trust. but i am happy to see tulsi has done more than i thought.

I am always hesitant to believe politicians when they say they've changed - they've never given a reason for us to believe them, historically.

Felt she was genuine. And the lgbtq community has been happy with her track record recently, so I feel she is doing the right things and will continue to, after such a not so good beginning

[Clyde_Style]

I get that people can choose to forgive Tulsi for having been rabidly anti-gay.

I also get that Joe Biden has stated that he is committed to ending systemic racism. But according to some he is pretty much the evil status quo. He is very forthcoming and seems genuinely interested in meeting the moment and getting it right.

So I wonder how it is that some people want to forgive Tulsi, but not a guy like Biden. Coming from a homophobic, islamicphobic background is not worse than Biden making some mistakes on past legislation?

Lately, I see lots of selective reasoning that excuses one person, but villifies another. It lacks consistent logic, thus appears to be emotionally driven which is not a healthy way to select whom you vote for.

i try not to go too far down that road because i don't know who is doing both. i would challenge folks specifically when i observed it, and addressed it broadly once i was able to trace a pattern. but that's the career researcher in me talking.

It is already one of the predominant themes in this thread which is: DNC Bad, Anything Else Good. And one of those alternatives cited was Tulsi. When pushed on why people are willing to overlook her glaring issues it seems everything is okey dokey because she has the label of dark horse or spoiler, i.e. not the DNC. So people will say I don't care if you did X, Y or Z as long as you're not Hillary or Biden, etc. And that seems to be depth of some of the logic for why it is better to throw away your vote for Biden and help elect Trump as if the moral stench of the DNC is too noxious, but the noxious stench of Tulsi's past is acceptable. It lacks any intellectual integrity.

[Jeff Van Gully]

i believe she went back and, not only addressed her older statements, but has changed her mind on a lot of things.


I understand why she used to think a different way - not all, but a lot of people brought up in extremely religious households are taught to believe certain things, and it's hard for them to change them.


she has since changed her stances on gay people, gay marriage, etc. she didn't do it for clout or poll numbers, either. i can respect people who have the ability to change their minds as they grow as a person. to call her homophobic, i feel, is unfair

i absolutely respect the ability to change. i fully support people who HAVE changed. that's one of the best things to see in life. and those people can have great impact.

i just happened upon this fascinating medium piece from an LGBT dem on tulsi's homophobic past. long story short, it says she's walked the walk re: LGBTQ with her voting record. it also has respect for people who have been hurt by tulsi's previous actions.

https://medium.com/@kathrynrosefisher/im-lgbt-here-s-where-the-media-is-wrong-on-tulsi-gabbard-bb0fde008d16

i remember her statements. i hope they were genuine too. i am open to listening and giving her a shot if she's genuine. i think it takes a long time to earn back trust. but i am happy to see tulsi has done more than i thought.

I am always hesitant to believe politicians when they say they've changed - they've never given a reason for us to believe them, historically.

Felt she was genuine. And the lgbtq community has been happy with her track record recently, so I feel she is doing the right things and will continue to, after such a not so good beginning

yeah. the stuff tulsi was on cuts really deeply for LOTS of people. i would have a hard time believing. but i can't argue with the voting record. and she has spoken to it all quite appropriately. time heals that kind of wound.

[br7knicks]

Not to mention her softcore Islamophobia. I’m always amazed that when I come across the 5 people that voted for her on the Primary they ignore her glaringly obvious red flags and paint a picture of a totally different person.

what has she said that is islamophobic? i legit don't know.

i wasn't aware of islamophobia on her part. but i just looked it up and saw a breakdown of what may be meant by that. sounds like she might have fallen in line with some of the conservative-led incendiary language against muslims when addressing terrorism:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-policies

Gabbard initially excited the left because she was an outspoken economic progressive and a veteran who objected to American intervention abroad. She was also the first Hindu member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi called her an “emerging star”; MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow predicted she was “on the fast track to being very famous.”

But in the following years, Gabbard staked out foreign policy positions that shocked her allies. She joined Republicans in demanding that President Obama use the term “radical Islam.” She was the member of Congress most willing to advocate for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. She dubbed herself a “hawk” on terrorism. Reporters documented worrying ties to anti-LGBTQ groups — including one run by her father — and anti-Muslim Hindu nationalists.

Gabbard has defenses of these positions, some more persuasive than others. She seems to have sincerely changed her mind on LGBTQ issues, defends her position on terrorism as a necessary response to the serious threat from jihadism to the United States, and argues that her outreach to the Syrian government is part of an effort to open up space for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

aside from this kind of thing, tulsi struck me as a textbook moderate who had sneaky potential for broad appeal. definitely the kind of democrat who is more palatable to conservative areas. i saw she had solid support in southern states. regardless of how her campaign went, i think she did a pretty good job getting herself out there. i wouldn't count her out long-term just yet.

Yeah. That's not islamophobic, though. Not too worried about that.

Like Christianity, there are religions that have extremists who want to do harm to others. They often overshadow the vast number of those practicing the religion who are peaceful and loving people.

But I'm sure if you asked how she felt about Christian extremists who want non believers hurt, dead, etc, she'd condemn them and call them terrorists - Timothy McVeigh

I would put money on her hating the westboro Baptist Church as well

Radical islam would be similar to saying radical Christians. They exist, and I don't like people who want to do harm to others.

Not sure I like the term radical islam tho.

[Jeff Van Gully]

I get that people can choose to forgive Tulsi for having been rabidly anti-gay.

I also get that Joe Biden has stated that he is committed to ending systemic racism. But according to some he is pretty much the evil status quo. He is very forthcoming and seems genuinely interested in meeting the moment and getting it right.

So I wonder how it is that some people want to forgive Tulsi, but not a guy like Biden. Coming from a homophobic, islamicphobic background is not worse than Biden making some mistakes on past legislation?

Lately, I see lots of selective reasoning that excuses one person, but villifies another. It lacks consistent logic, thus appears to be emotionally driven which is not a healthy way to select whom you vote for.

i try not to go too far down that road because i don't know who is doing both. i would challenge folks specifically when i observed it, and addressed it broadly once i was able to trace a pattern. but that's the career researcher in me talking.

It is already one of the predominant themes in this thread which is: DNC Bad, Anything Else Good. And one of those alternatives cited was Tulsi. When pushed on why people are willing to overlook her glaring issues it seems everything is okey dokey because she has the label of dark horse or spoiler, i.e. not the DNC. So people will say I don't care if you did X, Y or Z as long as you're not Hillary or Biden, etc. And that seems to be depth of some of the logic for why it is better to throw away your vote for Biden and help elect Trump as if the moral stench of the DNC is too noxious, but the noxious stench of Tulsi's past is acceptable. It lacks any intellectual integrity.

i see what you mean. i agree that's poor logic.

[br7knicks]

i absolutely respect the ability to change. i fully support people who HAVE changed. that's one of the best things to see in life. and those people can have great impact.

i just happened upon this fascinating medium piece from an LGBT dem on tulsi's homophobic past. long story short, it says she's walked the walk re: LGBTQ with her voting record. it also has respect for people who have been hurt by tulsi's previous actions.

https://medium.com/@kathrynrosefisher/im-lgbt-here-s-where-the-media-is-wrong-on-tulsi-gabbard-bb0fde008d16

i remember her statements. i hope they were genuine too. i am open to listening and giving her a shot if she's genuine. i think it takes a long time to earn back trust. but i am happy to see tulsi has done more than i thought.

I am always hesitant to believe politicians when they say they've changed - they've never given a reason for us to believe them, historically.

Felt she was genuine. And the lgbtq community has been happy with her track record recently, so I feel she is doing the right things and will continue to, after such a not so good beginning

yeah. the stuff tulsi was on cuts really deeply for LOTS of people. i would have a hard time believing. but i can't argue with the voting record. and she has spoken to it all quite appropriately. time heals that kind of wound.

I agree. The fact that her voting record has improved (since I support gay marriage, I see it as an improvement) tells me she has hope.

I'll never agree fully with any candidate any everything.

But as you said, I need to see a long track record of it, and not an easy, quick flip flop

[Clyde_Style]

Read on Twitter

[Jeff Van Gully]

what has she said that is islamophobic? i legit don't know.

i wasn't aware of islamophobia on her part. but i just looked it up and saw a breakdown of what may be meant by that. sounds like she might have fallen in line with some of the conservative-led incendiary language against muslims when addressing terrorism:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-policies

Gabbard initially excited the left because she was an outspoken economic progressive and a veteran who objected to American intervention abroad. She was also the first Hindu member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi called her an “emerging star”; MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow predicted she was “on the fast track to being very famous.”

But in the following years, Gabbard staked out foreign policy positions that shocked her allies. She joined Republicans in demanding that President Obama use the term “radical Islam.” She was the member of Congress most willing to advocate for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. She dubbed herself a “hawk” on terrorism. Reporters documented worrying ties to anti-LGBTQ groups — including one run by her father — and anti-Muslim Hindu nationalists.

Gabbard has defenses of these positions, some more persuasive than others. She seems to have sincerely changed her mind on LGBTQ issues, defends her position on terrorism as a necessary response to the serious threat from jihadism to the United States, and argues that her outreach to the Syrian government is part of an effort to open up space for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

aside from this kind of thing, tulsi struck me as a textbook moderate who had sneaky potential for broad appeal. definitely the kind of democrat who is more palatable to conservative areas. i saw she had solid support in southern states. regardless of how her campaign went, i think she did a pretty good job getting herself out there. i wouldn't count her out long-term just yet.

Yeah. That's not islamophobic, though. Not too worried about that.

Like Christianity, there are religions that have extremists who want to do harm to others. They often overshadow the vast number of those practicing the religion who are peaceful and loving people.

But I'm sure if you asked how she felt about Christian extremists who want non believers hurt, dead, etc, she'd condemn them and call them terrorists - Timothy McVeigh

I would put money on her hating the westboro Baptist Church as well

Radical islam would be similar to saying radical Christians. They exist, and I don't like people who want to do harm to others.

Not sure I like the term radical islam tho.

i get that. i think when people see that, they also see things that have been used as rhetorical and legislative vehicles for islamophobia. that movement to demand the use of the term "radical islam" was a classic play to otherize. she didn't have to choose that hill to fight on or jump into that bucket. i understand why people are wary. i don't love to see that kind of language and approach myself, even in the context of what's necessary to keep us safe. i think there are ways to do that without even opening the door to mass vilification, dehumanization, or painting with a broad brush. in tulsi's case, she's got to be EXTRA careful given what we know about her family/religious background. you also don't want to fall into the bucket that co-opts all servicepeople as that way, because they aren't.

i prefer leaders who are much more careful about that. i am a believer in the power of rhetoric.

[br7knicks]

i try not to go too far down that road because i don't know who is doing both. i would challenge folks specifically when i observed it, and addressed it broadly once i was able to trace a pattern. but that's the career researcher in me talking.

It is already one of the predominant themes in this thread which is: DNC Bad, Anything Else Good. And one of those alternatives cited was Tulsi. When pushed on why people are willing to overlook her glaring issues it seems everything is okey dokey because she has the label of dark horse or spoiler, i.e. not the DNC. So people will say I don't care if you did X, Y or Z as long as you're not Hillary or Biden, etc. And that seems to be depth of some of the logic for why it is better to throw away your vote for Biden and help elect Trump as if the moral stench of the DNC is too noxious, but the noxious stench of Tulsi's past is acceptable. It lacks any intellectual integrity.

i see what you mean. i agree that's poor logic.

I can't think of a single politician who has had a great past.

All I want is improvement from what we currently have - shouldn't be hard.


But I'd rather debate, argue, or discuss with people who can do so without insults - you, stannis, or most on here. That's why I simply put Clyde on my ignore list, and won't miss seeing his posts.


There are plenty of people I disagree with, but they've been reasonable and adult about it - again, you, stannis. Hell, Ibrahim and I used to go at it, years ago. Just not a fan of people needing to take shots at intelligence simply over a disagreement. Ruins the point, and fun, of having discussions, debates, etc. I have no problem calling out candidates I like, since, again, I never fully agree with any of them.

But it's just trying to be civilized and grown up about discussions that would be a nice change. That's why I didn't bother going back to the Democrat thread - someone with a different viewpoint will have their intelligence mocked and insulted simply over a disagreement. Ruins any desire to stick around.

So I'ma have to call it quits again. Not worth the facepalm slaps. Thanks for trying, though, JVG, stannis, etc

[Jeff Van Gully]

i just want to take a moment to say we're off to a pretty good start in this thread in the way of having respectful conversation amid different perspectives. i really hope it continues. thank you all so far. i'm enjoying taking part my damn self, and i tend to stay out of these.

also, please don't take the bait if anyone breaks trend and lobs a grenade. we don't want to overmod these kinds of threads, but do use the warnings if needed.

[br7knicks]

i wasn't aware of islamophobia on her part. but i just looked it up and saw a breakdown of what may be meant by that. sounds like she might have fallen in line with some of the conservative-led incendiary language against muslims when addressing terrorism:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-policies



aside from this kind of thing, tulsi struck me as a textbook moderate who had sneaky potential for broad appeal. definitely the kind of democrat who is more palatable to conservative areas. i saw she had solid support in southern states. regardless of how her campaign went, i think she did a pretty good job getting herself out there. i wouldn't count her out long-term just yet.

Yeah. That's not islamophobic, though. Not too worried about that.

Like Christianity, there are religions that have extremists who want to do harm to others. They often overshadow the vast number of those practicing the religion who are peaceful and loving people.

But I'm sure if you asked how she felt about Christian extremists who want non believers hurt, dead, etc, she'd condemn them and call them terrorists - Timothy McVeigh

I would put money on her hating the westboro Baptist Church as well

Radical islam would be similar to saying radical Christians. They exist, and I don't like people who want to do harm to others.

Not sure I like the term radical islam tho.

i get that. i think when people see that, they also see things that have been used as rhetorical and legislative vehicles for islamophobia. that movement to demand the use of the term "radical islam" was a classic play to otherize. she didn't have to choose that hill to fight on or jump into that bucket. i understand why people are wary. i don't love to see that kind of language and approach myself, even in the context of what's necessary to keep us safe. i think there are ways to do that without even opening the door to mass vilification, dehumanization, or painting with a broad brush. in tulsi's case, she's got to be EXTRA careful given what we know about her family/religious background. you also don't want to fall into the bucket that co-opts all servicepeople as that way, because they aren't.

i prefer leaders who are much more careful about that. i am a believer in the power of rhetoric.

Precisely. Seeing her wanting it called that (and maybe she's changed her stance on that as well) puts a bad taste in my mouth.

But again, overall, she was my favorite candidate and. I'm bummed she wasn't brought in to help with Biden, since he got the nod from the democrats.

It was nice being civil with you, even though we disagree on a bunch of things, JVG.

[Jeff Van Gully]

It is already one of the predominant themes in this thread which is: DNC Bad, Anything Else Good. And one of those alternatives cited was Tulsi. When pushed on why people are willing to overlook her glaring issues it seems everything is okey dokey because she has the label of dark horse or spoiler, i.e. not the DNC. So people will say I don't care if you did X, Y or Z as long as you're not Hillary or Biden, etc. And that seems to be depth of some of the logic for why it is better to throw away your vote for Biden and help elect Trump as if the moral stench of the DNC is too noxious, but the noxious stench of Tulsi's past is acceptable. It lacks any intellectual integrity.

i see what you mean. i agree that's poor logic.

I can't think of a single politician who has had a great past.

All I want is improvement from what we currently have - shouldn't be hard.


But I'd rather debate, argue, or discuss with people who can do so without insults - you, stannis, or most on here. That's why I simply put Clyde on my ignore list, and won't miss seeing his posts.


There are plenty of people I disagree with, but they've been reasonable and adult about it - again, you, stannis. Hell, Ibrahim and I used to go at it, years ago. Just not a fan of people needing to take shots at intelligence simply over a disagreement. Ruins the point, and fun, of having discussions, debates, etc. I have no problem calling out candidates I like, since, again, I never fully agree with any of them.

But it's just trying to be civilized and grown up about discussions that would be a nice change. That's why I didn't bother going back to the Democrat thread - someone with a different viewpoint will have their intelligence mocked and insulted simply over a disagreement. Ruins any desire to stick around.

So I'ma have to call it quits again. Not worth the facepalm slaps. Thanks for trying, though, JVG, stannis, etc

you have every right to ignore anyone.

i don't see what clyde and i are discussing as an attack on an intelligence, but a challenge to logic. i do see how that can be seen as overall snide/pompous. as i mentioned, i try to avoid that direction of conversation.

not defending or invalidating how you feel about it. i completely understand. as my ill-timed previous post states, it seemed like we were doing pretty well -- especially considering how the democratic threads went. hope you do change your mind at some point, because we DO want this one to be a much better environment.