-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Current chances of highly close to announcement or announced
Harris: 70% chance of nomination
Gillibrand: 50% chance of nomination
Castro: 30% chance of nomination
Gabbard: 70% chance
to go Republican
I swear you've/we've explained this at LEAST a dozen times and he still is on his bullshit
I honestly don't think he cares. He picked his side and is gonna stick to it.
Her siblings aren't running for president in the Democratic primaries or have a history with being a Democrat. She's not ideology anything but on the left for decades.
He's finally replacing the people on his team who went to Beto.
I mean the articles about Beto and Obama being attached to him and his supporters.
Or Nomiki Konst claiming the establishment weaponized #metoo against him
Pro establishment media attacks have begun on progressive candidates. Bernie and Gabbard under fire. Warren already being dismissed. Despite polling somehow under performing establishment candidates are somehow randomly favored by pundits in the media. Gonna be another fun one.
Despite media bias, I do think Gabbard's religious baggage makes her a no from me.
Despite media bias, I do think Gabbard's religious baggage makes her a no from me.
Gabbard isn`t progressive, she is special selective and what she is liberal on and what she is conservative on
Gabbard isn't a progressive my goose. No one who criticized Barack Obama for not bombing people enough gets to be called progressive.
And that's not even hitting on how she was anti-LGBT well after the ~The Establishment~ had moved into endorsements of Civil Unions as a compromise on marriage equality (which itself was mealy-mouthed bull, but Progressive Champion Tulsi Gabbard couldn't even be danged to go that little)
Nothing says "progressive" like labelling queer people homosexual extremists.
It's a bold new era for progressivism!
User Banned (1 Week): Dismissing homophobia over a series of posts; concern trolling
Purity test much?
(Of course those comments are problematic, as I said in my initial post, as they were informed by her religious baggage)
Current positions matter more than previous ones (or does that only apply to candidate of choice??), But prior beliefs still should be considered, especially when arrived at by presently held faulty framework ( religion).
Yeah, the establishment does fight back in invisible primaries, they're allowed to like anybody else. It's not a platform for the progressives to go all out without getting any consequences.
Pundits are allowed to have opinions, you don't have to agree with them.
Warren's fine, she's just out of the spotlight at the moment she'll come back when she's doing something newsworthy.
Gabbard deserves to be under fire, among all the candidates running she's the least deserving of the name progressive or Democrat. Between all the candidates the ones who should be taking her out of the game should be Bernie and Warren, she's sullying their reputations by association.
That reminds me of how the TYT reacted to Gabbard's running. She's just a different variety of progressive, everybody. Relax.
The problem I have with the bias is that it is more insidious than in other places, for example, a large percentage of article info could be sourced by opposition research led by other campaigns. Without somewhat better transparency (while still protecting sources), this leads to an unequal representation of what is actually happening. As another example, we have seen so called journalists sacrifice integrity in order to maintain access. It's not just random opinions by random people. There are systemic biases that are not addressed when they are necessary context.
TYT has criticized her for comments though, and also for her questionable support of some autocratic regimes. Also, they were clearly more excited for Warren, who did not endorse Bernie. Hmmm. Maybe it's their actual policies they seem to champion??
Again, purity tests are a thing that centrists love to accuse progressives of, when in reality they are the ones doing it all along. Projection is strong sometimes.
Are you fucking kidding me.
With a straight face, you're saying THAT is a purity test?
Lol
Bias is everywhere, and they're better at reigning themselves in than the TYT or Chapo, who pride themselves on not being viewed as professional organisations. Majority Report has bias, too, but they're willing to come at angles neutrally and intellectually then those guys, aside from hosts like Ana. She may be up front with her views except she's in the Sam Seder mould of pundit. The articles with Bernie's '16 have had accounts with named people, both victims and harassers, it's not entirely protected sources - which are a standard in reporting anyway. You're conflating reporters on the streets with pundits, and while you're not incorrect this does make what progressive political operatives right like David Sirota. If the progressives want to play dirty, fine by me. We'll see who wins.
Progressives love to purity test the opposition, not themselves. We're simply pointing out the hypocrisy, going after Beto's ok but not Gabbard? She's not your side, man, she's just using the progressive label and Bernie's support as a shield. This is why Gabbard stands out, had she been a centrist or liberal I bet TYT would be destroying her right now, but she endorsed Bernie so she's one of them.
TYT weren't doing anything like that in that video, the first thing they say and repeatedly defend her by saying she's a "different kind of progressive." I've seen harsher rebukes of Gabbard from centrist shrills.
Last edited:
Beto - Voted ONE PERCENT more with with GOP than Nancy Pelosi when running state wide in a red state
Boiled Goose - What an awful centrist, how can you support him?
Tulsi - Calls gay people subhuman trash and uses anti-gay slurs
Boiled Goose - Hey hey hey cool it with the purity tests everyone.
Boiled Goose - What an awful centrist, how can you support him?
Tulsi - Calls gay people subhuman trash and uses anti-gay slurs
Boiled Goose - Hey hey hey cool it with the purity tests everyone.
I would say any single issue is a purity test. The twist is of course I think purity tests are fine.
Usually though, candidates are a mixed bag, so you have to choose least imperfect. Usually it is pretty obvious who the better choice is.
How about gays are subhuman trash + I <3 torture.
Does that still count as a single issue or...?
Tulsi doesn't even consider gays as real people deserving equal rights so I guess it doesn't get to count as a full issue I suppose.
Only candidates we can say with any certainty that they have no chance are Tulsi, Bernie, Ojeda, and Castro. Everyone else has a fair shot.
If you are referring to what I posted, the person's profile is filled with Bernie and Sirota retweets.
When it comes to Gabbard, it's literally everybody. Gabbard's not a candidate with one problem with policies, but with several and she has a worse transition from the GOP to Democrat than Warren.
2015. 2015, again. 2016. 2016, again. 2017. These weren't bad decisions made 20 years ago, which I can be convinced to ignore by her moving on. She's running in the wrong party, and is a disgrace to the progressive wing.
For those who don't know who the current Prime Minister Modi is.
My favorite is when she was asked in 2016 about her past anti-gay activism and said she still stands by her views she just doesn't want the government to enact policies that dictate her persona views.
As if it's a'okay to hate gay people like she does as long as you don't make it against the law to be gay.
As if it's a'okay to hate gay people like she does as long as you don't make it against the law to be gay.
Yeah he is working with Ocasio's people. Nothing of value was lost tbh. Beto can keep them.
Both are single issues that IMO are valid purity tests to reject a candidate if they had such views. I certainly wouldn't be happy to support a candidate with either of those views.
Today Pro war, pro death penalty, pro private prisons, anti choice are also non starters for me, and of course there are more.
Good luck to her winning the primary if her views are still questionable on gay rights.... It's not even a major issue in the right wing anymore
Lol.
Current Polling and advantage from name recognition are huge in primaries. Plus you know, campaign infrastructure and experience.
But yeah. Ignore those factors and current polling.
Has anyone brought up Xavier Becerra in here? Cause he should totally run and would have my full support if he did. After the bullshit that is Trump the clap back should be a Latinx in the White House.
OP
OP
I mean it seems like she'll be fine since people like you will just call it a purity test
Bernie would have an outside chance if he could somehow figure out the black vote. He has a lot energy behind him for a racially insensitive septuagenarian.
They've scattered to the winds. They're on Warren's and other candidates campaigns, and many have transitioned to various political groups like Brand New Congress, the Justice Democrats etc. Bernie's going to have start from scratch almost entirely again, the more experienced cream of the crop from '16 are elsewhere. His past campaign's issues with sexual harassment isn't going to help him recruit or retain people, either.
Front runners have the full backing of the establishment, and access to a war chest which overwhelms everyone else. This is why Hillary was the front runner in '16 and '08. Bernie has neither. The front runners for this election will either be Biden or Beto, Harris has an outside shot. Coming in second place is not a guarantee a candidate who runs again will be the front runner.
Last edited:
Kamala Harris spent about 25 minutes on Morning Joe last week. I'm definitely impressed with her.
- Status