Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Franknbeans

Tulsi Gabbard 2020

Recommended Posts

Her candidacy would begin with lots of people being enthusiastic about an attractive young candidate with decent progressive bona fides,.

It would end as soon as one of her rivals suggested that people google "Gabbard Syria Assad."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, the moops said:

Millennial congresswoman: I'm 'seriously considering' running in 2020

Would anyone consider a 37 year old a millenial?

My wife is 38.  My friend called her a millennial the other night and she nearly bit his head off.

No, 37 is not a millennial.  And the era of responsible journalism continues to erode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, the moops said:

Millennial congresswoman: I'm 'seriously considering' running in 2020

Would anyone consider a 37 year old a millenial?

 

4 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

My wife is 38.  My friend called her a millennial the other night and she nearly bit his head off.

No, 37 is not a millennial.  And the era of responsible journalism continues to erode.

 

The general beginning of the millenial generation is between 80 and 82 depending on the source so she certainly could be considered one. I am 36 and consider myself one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

 

 

The general beginning of the millenial generation is between 80 and 82 depending on the source so she certainly could be considered one. I am 36 and consider myself one. 

Says who?  Is there an official scientific committee that determines this?  No?  The whole thing is dumb.  

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

 

 

The general beginning of the millenial generation is between 80 and 82 depending on the source so she certainly could be considered one. I am 36 and consider myself one. 

I'm 37 and wouldn't care if someone called me a millenial.  Most millenial bashers are total douchlords who I want nothing to do with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Says who?  Is there an official scientific committee that determines this?  No?  The whole thing is dumb.  

If the while thing is dumb then why do you even care what generation any is placed in? Anyway the ideas and years were all put forward by authors and researchers who published literature on the idea of generational commonalities. Ofcourse cutoffs are a bit arbitrary but calling Gabbard a millenial is more accurate than the typical media story where they millenial and then talk about people who are 20. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dickies said:

I'm 37 and wouldn't care if someone called me a millenial.  Most millenial bashers are total douchlords who I want nothing to do with.

I wouldn't mind either, were I 6 years younger - but I just neve thought of people in their mid to late 30's to be millenials. Thought it was more of a mid to late 20 year old thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

If the while thing is dumb then why do you even care what generation any is placed in? Anyway the ideas and years were all put forward by authors and researchers who published literature on the idea of generational commonalities. Ofcourse cutoffs are a bit arbitrary but calling Gabbard a millenial is more accurate than the typical media story where they millenial and then talk about people who are 20. 

Proof read your posts, millennial.

I gave an anecdote of why I care.  Read it or don't.  I think the whole thing is dumb.  My wife?  She objects to being called one.  :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I really hope she does run.  She is intelligent and down to earth and I highly recommend people listed to the Joe Rogan podcast.  It was nice getting to listen to her outside of soundbites and 10 minute interviews.  She seems to be completely scandal-free as an added bonus, although the GOP will certainly create something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dickies said:

Oh, and I really hope she does run.  She is intelligent and down to earth and I highly recommend people listed to the Joe Rogan podcast.  It was nice getting to listen to her outside of soundbites and 10 minute interviews.  She seems to be completely scandal-free as an added bonus, although the GOP will certainly create something.

Uh, the secret meeting with Assad could be a problem. :oldunsure:

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Franknbeans said:

Considering Assad didn't use chemical weapons against his own people according to our own intelligence agencies including Mattis , I don't see the problem.

You think that him using/not using chemical weapons against his own people is the only concern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Franknbeans said:

Considering Assad didn't use chemical weapons against his own people according to our own intelligence agencies including Mattis , I don't see the problem.

That video is old- Mattis testified that he believes there was a chemical weapons attack two months later.  And here's a recounting of the evidence from British news around that same time (two months after your Dore video). Also the "no evidence!" argument is Russian-born; if you think the Dems are gonna be eager to buy into Russian propaganda that contradicts the west you haven't been paying attention for the last few years.

The other issue is that in addition to the problems her secret meetings with Assad's regime present in their own right, the whole thing bears more than a passing resemblance to concerns about the current administration kowtowing to Putin and Mohammed Bin Salman after secretive interactions with those brutal dictators and their governments. Dems are not gonna be eager to go right back down that path with their own candidate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Uh, the secret meeting with Assad could be a problem. :oldunsure:

 

Have been reading up on her stance with Syria since you posted this.  I know she is very anti-war, but I also do find her position on Syria a bit extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally like Gabbard, but I think she sits in a bit of a weird political position that will hurt her chances in the Democratic primary. She's very left/progressive on some issues, while also being a pretty big warhawk due to her own personal beliefs and history. I think that will hurt her if there are other, more "pure" progressive candidates running against her in a primary. That said, I could see that mix being more appealing in a general election, as she might be able to bring over some people that would balk at a more traditional progressive candidate. As a poor analogy, I see her a bit more like a Teddy progressive than an FDR progressive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi Gabbard is more conservative than Nancy Pelosi according to "On the Issues".

Which seems weird considering that Dore makes his bones denigrating older Democrats as establishment sellouts.  But not really that weird since on the issues is fact based and data driven as opposed to Jimmy "Seth Rich" Dore's conspiracy theories.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Tulsi Gabbard is more conservative than Nancy Pelosi according to "On the Issues".

Which seems weird considering that Dore makes his bones denigrating older Democrats as establishment sellouts.  But not really that weird since on the issues is fact based and data driven as opposed to Jimmy "Seth Rich" Dore's conspiracy theories.  

Dore is part of this weird "alternative progressive" movement that seems largely dedicated to taking down "establishment" Democrats for not putting up enough of a fight against the evils of Trump and the modern GOP instead of focusing on taking down the people actually doing the evil stuff.  IMO it's kind of like blaming the Holocaust on France, but :shrug:

Also since they sided so strongly with Wikileaks back in the Edward Snowden era they've also backed themselves into a corner and now find themselves siding with both Assange and Putin, or at least Putin-approved propaganda  (see eg defending Assad against charges of using chemical weapons). It's pretty wild. Glenn Greenwald is maybe the leader of this weird movement. 

If you want to see it in real time, watch as they focus their anger on the 5 Dems who voted with the GOP yesterday on the farm bill rider to get the US out of Yemen yesterday and totally ignore the GOP House leader who brought it to a vote and the 200 Republicans who voted the same way.  I don't know if they've actually started doing this yet, but it's pretty much a 100% guarantee that they will.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, General Malaise said:

Proof read your posts, millennial.

I gave an anecdote of why I care.  Read it or don't.  I think the whole thing is dumb.  My wife?  She objects to being called one.  :shrug:

 

I am not sure exactlty. Are the researchers scientists? Maybe social scientists. Ofcourse the generationthinal thing is kind of dumb but there certainly are some shared qualities between people born in similar time frames. Whether your wife likes it or not, she is generally considered to be a millenial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the moops said:

I wouldn't mind either, were I 6 years younger - but I just neve thought of people in their mid to late 30's to be millenials. Thought it was more of a mid to late 20 year old thing

We used to be our mid to late 20s but then we got older. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

That video is old- Mattis testified that he believes there was a chemical weapons attack two months later.  And here's a recounting of the evidence from British news around that same time (two months after your Dore video). Also the "no evidence!" argument is Russian-born; if you think the Dems are gonna be eager to buy into Russian propaganda that contradicts the west you haven't been paying attention for the last few years.

The other issue is that in addition to the problems her secret meetings with Assad's regime present in their own right, the whole thing bears more than a passing resemblance to concerns about the current administration kowtowing to Putin and Mohammed Bin Salman after secretive interactions with those brutal dictators and their governments. Dems are not gonna be eager to go right back down that path with their own candidate.

Testifying that he ‘believes’ there was a chemical weapons attack isn’t the same thing as proof, even says they were looking to OPCW at the time.  I believe there was a chemical weapons attack too, but that it made much more sense for someone who wanted bring the West into the war than someone trying to end it.  For the Syrian govt to employ such strategies when they’re right on the verge of winning is so bizarre as to be asinine.  

Gabbard’s position on Syria, as far as I can tell, is that leaving the Syrian govt alone is preferable to supporting violent religious extremists.  I’d rather Washington have direct talks with the Syrian govt than just bombing it.  Her position on Syria is much more credible than the regime changers.  It’s also more credible than people who voted for Iraq, worship Henry Kissinger, and oversaw the destruction of Libya. We have literally backed Al Qaida in Syria.  What the hell kind of sense is that supposed to make.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ren hoek said:

Testifying that he ‘believes’ there was a chemical weapons attack isn’t the same thing as proof, even says they were looking to OPCW at the time.  I believe there was a chemical weapons attack too, but that it made much more sense for someone who wanted bring the West into the war than someone trying to end it.  For the Syrian govt to employ such strategies when they’re right on the verge of winning is so bizarre as to be asinine.  

Gabbard’s position on Syria, as far as I can tell, is that leaving the Syrian govt alone is preferable to supporting violent religious extremists.  I’d rather Washington have direct talks with the Syrian govt than just bombing it.  Her position on Syria is much more credible than the regime changers.  It’s also more credible than people who voted for Iraq, worship Henry Kissinger, and oversaw the destruction of Libya. We have literally backed Al Qaida in Syria.  What the hell kind of sense is that supposed to make.  

Thanks for your perspective on the conclusions of western intelligence services, guy who refuses to believe that the Russians were behind the hacks of the DNC and was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory a couple weeks ago. I'll give it the weight it deserves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

I generally like Gabbard, but I think she sits in a bit of a weird political position that will hurt her chances in the Democratic primary. She's very left/progressive on some issues, while also being a pretty big warhawk due to her own personal beliefs and history. I think that will hurt her if there are other, more "pure" progressive candidates running against her in a primary. That said, I could see that mix being more appealing in a general election, as she might be able to bring over some people that would balk at a more traditional progressive candidate. As a poor analogy, I see her a bit more like a Teddy progressive than an FDR progressive.

I don't get the sense that she is a hawk at all.  She is really not that progressive either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Thanks for your perspective on the conclusions of western intelligence services, guy who refuses to believe that the Russians were behind the hacks of the DNC and was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory a couple weeks ago. I'll give it the weight it deserves.

Sure thing, guy that fell for TrumpRussia hysteria and reflexively takes intelligence agencies at face value, even after their work on Iraq and long history of lies.  Good copout 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I am not sure exactlty. Are the researchers scientists? Maybe social scientists. Ofcourse the generationthinal thing is kind of dumb but there certainly are some shared qualities between people born in similar time frames. Whether your wife likes it or not, she is generally considered to be a millenial. 

Born in 1980.  So, no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, General Malaise said:

Born in 1980.  So, no. 

I am just messing around. She is in a spot where she can self-identify so if she feels more like a gen Xer, she can be a gen Xer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Sure thing, guy that fell for TrumpRussia hysteria and reflexively takes intelligence agencies at face value, even after their work on Iraq and long history of lies.  Good copout 

I don't do either of those things- in fact I've repeatedly said my guess is that there's no real collusion, just kompromat. But don't let that stop you!

Anyway, the discussion here is about Gabbard's potential 2020 candidacy.  Whatever you may or may not think about Assad's culpability  or whatever wild theories you have about intelligence conspiracies are irrelevant. The bottom line is that she flew off for a secret meeting with a brutal dictator without telling the Obama administration and then returned and became that dictator's biggest defender on the Hill. If you think that's gonna fly with Dems in the wake of Trump/Putin, Rohrabacher/Putin, Trump/MBS, Kushner/MBS, etc., I've got a bridge in Aleppo to sell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, the moops said:

Millennial congresswoman: I'm 'seriously considering' running in 2020

Would anyone consider a 37 year old a millenial?

I would consider a can of tuna fish over Trump or Pence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I would consider a can of tuna fish over Trump or Pence

But would you consider MoP over Trump or Pence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

Too far to the left. Makes Kamela look like a conservative. 

And yet too far right on some things.

 

Plus, the real reason you don't like her is her stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

And yet too far right on some things.

 

Plus, the real reason you don't like her is her stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue...

Please don't project my views for me.

I would be willing to accept somebody who disagreed with me on that issue (depending on the level of disagreement) if I accepted them overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Dore is part of this weird "alternative progressive" movement that seems largely dedicated to taking down "establishment" Democrats for not putting up enough of a fight against the evils of Trump and the modern GOP instead of focusing on taking down the people actually doing the evil stuff.  IMO it's kind of like blaming the Holocaust on France, but :shrug:

Also since they sided so strongly with Wikileaks back in the Edward Snowden era they've also backed themselves into a corner and now find themselves siding with both Assange and Putin, or at least Putin-approved propaganda  (see eg defending Assad against charges of using chemical weapons). It's pretty wild. Glenn Greenwald is maybe the leader of this weird movement. 

If you want to see it in real time, watch as they focus their anger on the 5 Dems who voted with the GOP yesterday on the farm bill rider to get the US out of Yemen yesterday and totally ignore the GOP House leader who brought it to a vote and the 200 Republicans who voted the same way.  I don't know if they've actually started doing this yet, but it's pretty much a 100% guarantee that they will.

I agree Dore is a little too :tinfoilhat: at times but I see anything wrong with somebody focusing on highlighting Dems who they may consider DINOs.  I agree though that his stance on Trump is baffling but thankfully I don't take any single person or news outlet as gospel and try to think for myself.  Some of his stuff is a miss but he has some hits too.  I haven't listened to many of his videos for a while so maybe he's gotten worse but overall I've reached a Trump overload and have to take a break every once in while.

As for Gabbard - I like her and glad she's willing to serve - I'd vote for her if she was the nominee but I'm greatly concerned about how hawkish she would be.

Edited by AAABatteries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Dore is part of this weird "alternative progressive" movement that seems largely dedicated to taking down "establishment" Democrats for not putting up enough of a fight against the evils of Trump and the modern GOP instead of focusing on taking down the people actually doing the evil stuff.  

That's not his stance at all. He's pissed at them because they're in bed with the folks doing all of the evil ####, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Franknbeans said:

That's not his stance at all. He's pissed at them because they're in bed with the folks doing all of the evil ####, too.

What would you say he's spent more time and energy on- stuff like Cory Booker taking money from pharma companies, or stuff like the family separation policy?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like either one. But there is a lot of distance, ethically speaking, between "I take money from people who do bad stuff" and "I do bad stuff."  Sorry, but I have trouble with anyone who has a microphone and an audience but chooses to focus on the former instead of the latter at this moment in our history.  Especially since the people who do bad stuff also take money from people who do bad stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gopher State said:

Who???????

She is someone who actually served in the military.  By choice.

Edited by IC FBGCav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Wish I trusted her in LGBTQ issues.  Wish I liked her foreign policy.  We’ll see, I guess. 

I like her, she is young.  Let's see her during the process.  I like her policy stances from a far, let's she her under the microscope.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Wish I trusted her in LGBTQ issues.  Wish I liked her foreign policy.  We’ll see, I guess. 

Btw. Her foreign policy issues are Bernies. Mostly.  Why she left dnc for bernie campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IC FBGCav said:

Btw. Her foreign policy issues are Bernies. Mostly.  Why she left dnc for bernie campaign.

I love Bernie but my serious question marks I had for him were on foreign policy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IC FBGCav said:

Btw. Her foreign policy issues are Bernies. Mostly.  Why she left dnc for bernie campaign.

Just guessing, but this might mean Bernie isn't running.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IC FBGCav said:

Btw. Her foreign policy issues are Bernies. Mostly.  Why she left dnc for bernie campaign.

Syria. Assad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Syria. Assad. 

I know this has been brought up many times about her.  Never did a deep dive on it, did you?

Edited by IC FBGCav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dickies said:

I love Bernie but my serious question marks I had for him were on foreign policy

What are your concerns?

Probably wrong thread, either way.

Edited by IC FBGCav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IC FBGCav said:

I know this has been brought up many times about her.  Never did a deep dive on it, did you?

I understand you have differing views, but it is entirely inappropriate for her to have flown to Syria and met with Assad without notifying the government in 2017. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.