But the problem is, that doesn’t seem like her stance… her stance seems to be to use the special forces instead… I wouldn’t be surprised if she’d believe in privatizing these wars (which she wouldn’t express due to her being a democratic candidate).
3 Likes
I don’t entirely trust her either, but prefer this ostensibly anti-endless war candidate to establishment dems at this point. Paying lip service to social issues while perpetuating economic injustice is a simple, but effective tactic used by both parties. I believe economic injustice is the greatest problem in our country, as it affects the our basic needs, which we all share, regardless of creed. While people get in a tizzy about their personal values, they don’t notice what’s being done to them economically. In this way, I think Dems are no different than MAGA people.
As for the allusion to the Ralph Nader effect/“pox on both their houses…” Who said there are no differences between the parties? It wasn’t me. I think the DNC owns that, and this was particularly obvious with Bernie 2016. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat, but wasn’t allowed to by who? The D party. Put out a candidate worth voting for and quit crying when people vote their conscience instead of their tribe/herd. Partisan efforts to marginalize voices who don’t support the established players and their interests deserve the blame. AOC is useful now, but for how long? I wish her the best.
1 Like
Thanks for having the patience to make this.
I … could not.
2 Likes
We can do both, address social and economic inequality. It’s not impossible. In fact we NEED to tackle them both for any effective change to take place. Raising the living standards of the white working class did not end racism or sexism.
7 Likes
As far as I can tell, the Reagan administration was the most recent one that actually had a foreign policy (and it was odious). The policies, using the term loosely, of all the administrations since then have been entirely incoherent.
1 Like
I agree we can do both!
My preference would be to work on feeding people, single payer care, and education first. I’ll pay more taxes, but not if they’re just going to the pockets of Goldman Sachs and Lockheed.
These things affect more than the white working class–anyone who has to work for a living needs basic things to survive. All the “isms” will persist while people live with growing anxiety about basic needs. It’s only our oligarchs and the highest percentiles of net worth cohort that are immune, and that class has turned “Joe the Plumber” upside down by redistributing wealth from the poor and middle classes to themselves.
If there has been incoherence, it’s because there have been major, world changing events since the Reagan administration, which though coherent, was deeply dangerous and wreckless and is a major reason why we are where we are with regards to world affairs. I mean, we went from a sure, reliable “enemy” to a multipolar world. Of course, it’s going to seem incoherent. That doesn’t mean that each administration hasn’t had a underlying set of concepts and ideas that they wished to promote, globally. They just tend not to have a snazzy name like the Kirkpatrick doctrine…
I’d also argue that Reagan’s reliance on the Kirkpatrick doctrine led to incoherent policy aims, despite the seeming coherence. I’m honestly not sure if a FP should be able to be boiled down to a bumpersticker. I think it’s going to SEEM incoherent, because it’s trying to negotiate relationships with nearly 200 countries. How is that supposed to be coherent.
4 Likes
So families that have lost their kids to racist police violence need to sit down and wait their turn? No. We can do both. Economic and social justice are not separate.
11 Likes
Well, would it be too much to expect that repeated interactions with the same foreign power would appear to be guided by the same principles? The US hasn’t even been very good at that, sowing confusion in friend and foe alike. (Or perhaps that’s the point? In certain volatile areas, destabilization appears to be the persistent goal.)
I would think it was “worth” voting for Hilary Clinton in order to prevent Donald Trump’s 24-7 trainwreck presidency. I would think that the “conscience” of anyone looking at the relative merits of a Clinton presidency versus a Trump presidency would have dictated putting away their hurt feelings that the candidate of their choice didn’t get the nod, and doing everything within their power to make sure that Trump’s short, orange fingers didn’t get anywhere near the resolute desk.
I get that you have a different opinion and I can see we are not going to agree, so I will wish you good night and good luck. Cheers.
9 Likes
Circumstances change and each administration has their own approach, though it tends to be more similar than different.
Can you give a specific example of dealings with the same power that’s changed?
4 Likes
Fair enough, but I wish to make my positions clear, as the assessments of them in our discussion fall upon stereotypes, not my positions. Hurt feelings? No.
I am not a democrat or republican. Forced to choose between a known monster (HRC) and an unknown, unpredictable one (Trump), I voted for neither. HRC certainly did not represent me, as I believe we’d be deeper in unwinnable wars than we are now and her integrity was certainly not to my standard, among many issues. Based on what I’ve said here, that’s consistent back to Obama v whoever as well. I cannot hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, put forth a candidate I can believe in, and I’ll happily vote for hir. The DNC’s behavior in 2016 was detestable to me and I see the same energy gathering around the next election.
Thanks for the discussion and be well.
3 Likes
So, a purity pony then? If you cannot distinguish between the incoherent policies of the Trump insanity, and the TGOP coddling of the rich vs. the policies of the Democratic Party, which may not be totally to your liking, but at least are attempting to represent the less fortunate among us, then it is best if you not vote at all.
Don’t bother responding. It would indeed be a waste of time.
8 Likes
I actually give the Trump voter a very tiny iota of more respect than the ‘both parties are the same so I don’t vote’ people. They know the parties are not the same and they got off their asses and voted. They voted for a lazy grifter who has totally shafted them and this country but they still actually took an active role in their government.
4 Likes
Name calling makes a strong case.
Labels are shortcuts for the effort of thinking and understanding.
I thought this kind of behavior was moderated around here?
I disagree that the Democrats are making a genuine effort to help the less fortunate.
Replying beyond that would be a waste of time if it elicits only resorting to labels and name calling.
It’s bad form to continue addressing someone who has made it clear they no longer wish to be engaged; just FYI.
6 Likes
Then you are part of the problem and not the solution. Hillary wasn’t perfect by any stretch but what we ended up was so much worse - beyond what many of us could have ever imagined.
So, thanks for that.
9 Likes
4 Likes
This topic sure attracted a lot of heat.
I'm going to talk for too long about things I know nothing about.
I really didn’t know who Tulsi Gabbard was before I looked at this topic. I had definitely heard the name, but she wasn’t really on my radar. I’ve learned about her through this thread, in large part because her vehement backers provoked a lot of conversation about what we might not like about her.
I think about the vehemence that some posters backed Sanders with in the Democratic primaries and how cowicide* reacted to some of the “Bernie Bros” narratives that formed. I understand why people get so upset about their candidate being targeted by nonsense allegations.
But when I read the headline, as someone who didn’t know who she was, I didn’t think, “Oh damn, do the Democrats have a majority racist candidate?” I thought, “What the hell is David Duke up to?” After all, it wasn’t Duke’s endorsement of Trump that made Trump look bad, it was Trump’s response. He lied, said he didn’t know who Duke was. I posted earlier in the thread that all Gabbard has to do to ward off any possibility negativity from this is tell Duke to screw off. She did, case closed. So I feel the idea that the headline was a “smear” is really overplayed. Still, I guess I can understand it if there are other places where people are actually trying to use Duke’s endorsement to discredit her. I haven’t seen a single person do that in this thread and the post doesn’t do that.
Reading the thread, though, I found out a lot about her her history as an anti-gay-rights activist. That’s not bullshit the way the Bernie Bros narrative was bullshit. She really worked for a group that backed conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is right out.
Conversion therapy never worked, and if there was a period in time when the people doing it genuinely didn’t know they were doing harm by doing so, that period probably ended in the 60s or 70s. Even then I doubt it. Conversion therapy is about destroying people the “therapist” hates. It is the gay equivalent of residential schools; it’s attempted genocide.
So if I was going to support Gabbard I wouldn’t want to see quotes like “gay marriage should be celebrated" in the New Yorker. I’d want to see quotes like, “As a child I was taught that homosexuality was evil, and it took me far too long in my life to see that as a hateful, odious ideology. Discrimination against people based on their sexuality is evil, and groups that oppose gay rights have as much legitimacy as groups that oppose civil rights in the 60s.”
I’m not saying I would never back a former racist or homophobe for political office - sometimes when people get out of hate groups they become the most rabid opponents of those groups. But I don’t see the zeal of the converted anywhere in the articles about her. She didn’t wake up one day and realize that she was wrong and snap back 180 degrees, she gradually inched away from her old position. That means she’s only inches from it. That’s not something I would support, but it’s also not something that young democrats will support, so choosing her as the candidate would be a disaster.
* Sorry to anyone who wasn’t hanging around that I’m referencing internet ancient history. cowicide was involved in organizing for Sanders and could get very hostile towards people who criticized Sanders.
12 Likes
Well, the thread title is pretty much calculated to piss off anyone who likes Tulsi Gabbard, and annoy quite a few people who think she’s a lousy candidate, too.
