I'm glad she's going to have to fuck off sooner rather than later because it's breaking my brain reading anything from Tulsi supporters. It's like they're from an alternate universe
-
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.
2020 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 1+2 |OT| June 26-27, 2019
- Thread starter Deleted member 6223
- Start date
You have to be a real ignorant sack of shit if you think the Syrian uprising was started by Al-Qaida and wasn't a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional revolution attempt.
There's a reason Assad started gassing his own people and it wasn't because they were all radical terrorists.
Think my dream ticket is Warren/Castro. Castro really blew me away tonight. Really like Inslee too for taking a stand regarding climate change. Thought Booker did really well too which surprised me cuz I haven't really been a fan of his
They guy who's being propped up by two kids who voluntarily hang out with a massive shitstain who's actively cheerleading for the GOP.
the guy who thinks that michael bloomberg is the only person who can beat trump?
I like how neither of those posts address the fact that he is 1) not running to win so it doesn't matter and 2) would absolutely dunk on US imperialism if he was up there
Branding all Syrian rebels at the start of the uprising as ISIS or Al-Qaida highlights how people have a really black and white knowledge of the world and think the entire conflict was strong secular daddy Assad versus radical religious terrorists, which gives a great excuse to him committing numerous war crimes against his own citizens! They're all religious terrorists who hate freedom and secular governments!
/s if you couldn't tell
/s if you couldn't tell
Whatever fictional version of Trump you're imagining, stop. You're doing a dreadful job of the old "I'm not a Trump supporter but..." Trump supporter routine however.
Lol no. The last thing the debates need is for the rules to be bent so that Team Teen Troll can be let in.
If you think the most important thing about a candidate is about how they "dunk" on something, stop listening to Chapo and start actually reading the news.
a rousing dunk on US imperialism followed by a hearty endorsement of neoliberalism, all the while his Epic Twitter Teens would be posting Savage Eviscerations of his opponents.
He didn't meet the threshold but you want him let in anyway. I mean even Marriane Williamson met the threshold.
Tbf a candidate who can get the ball rolling on anti-imperialism even if they flop (similar to how Inslee is on climate change) is a good thing. Too bad Gravel and his campaign completely suck.
Yeah and it's obvious Gabbard isn't going to hold on (she answered a question about equal pay with 9/11 lol)
Might as well get some use out of her until she inevitably fucks off back to Hawaii
in a 20-person debate where cory booker can say he's anti-big pharma and get praised for a great debate performance, yeah it turns out making good talking points is the most important thing about a candidate. I don't know why yall are so concerned about a candidate who literally exists to make good points in a debate
The problem with "anti-imperialism" is generally the people that REALLY care about that issue tend to REALLY care about US imperialism while mysteriously not caring about Chinese imperialism, Russian imperialism, etc. Only the US is bad, all others are innocent angels slandered by propaganda.
Yeah I dealt with that literally last night when I argued with a tankie.
he reached 1% in a couple polls, he has a nonzero shot of making the July debates. I have no idea how you get rule-bending from that but ok
User Banned (Permanent): Denying war crimes, conspiratorial rhetoric, and trolling over multiple posts in this thread. History of similar behaviour and account in junior phase.
I never said the Syrian uprising was started by the worst groups in the region. I'm simply saying that the Obama Administration with Hillary at the helm of the State Dept. didn't want the U.S. to get directly involved in the civil war so they supplied every crazy jihadist group in the region with military supplies in the hopes that they'd be able to topple Assad's regime much like what happened to Gaddafi in Libya (which is now run by crazy jihadists).
But with Assad's regime able to beat back the rebels (some good but most bad, Assad's regime never butchered Christians in the country like what many of the rebel groups have been doing the past several years), most candidates would be ordering strikes on Damascus right now and we'd have Libya all over again.
Btw, there's no proof that Assad's regime used chemical weapons. Do you still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Sorry you had to go through that
But yeah, critics of the US's place in the world always forget that if we go, something much worse will replace it. Not to say that puts the US beyond criticism - they do a lot of bad, but no good would come out of China being able to write the rules like we do.
there are some pretty strong rumors that Booker is gay so I think him bringing up a huge issue in the LGBTQ+ community isn't pandering at all.
Agreed on your analysis otherwise though.
Well this isn't really a good argument against imperialism when a lot of the ventures were relatively unprompted by other world powers (various coups, Iraq etc.). Being able to counter other superpowers if the need arises isn't imperialism.
What the fuck, I thought that was one of those photoshopped parody tweets.
Jesus christ.
No I don't believe Iraq had WMDs but this is straight up insulting. Not even worth trying to parse the rest of your response if you're really gonna say propaganda shit like this.
extremely cold take but the whole "we're reluctantly shouldering the responsibility of being an imperial super power because somebody's gotta do it" is maybe not a great or truthful explanation of america's international actions
Cory "Isn't it weird that I announced my relationship with Rosario Dawson around the same time as I announced my bid for Presidency" Booker
Cory "Isn't it weird that I announced my relationship with Rosario Dawson around the same time as I announced my bid for Presidency" Booker
The same ones who are here for the anti imperialist dunking are also the ones who will say "I'll vote for Tulsi over any of these other milktoast libs" it's such a massive disconnect
Have to admit I exhaled really deep hearing Elizabeth Warren recommit to single-payer public healthcare. She's been eerily quiet about it for a while now.
Bernie's my man, but if it came down to Warren and Uncle Joe I'd feel privileged to get to vote for her. I just need a social democrat in the White House, dangit.
Bernie's my man, but if it came down to Warren and Uncle Joe I'd feel privileged to get to vote for her. I just need a social democrat in the White House, dangit.
It's tough discussing imperialism because it conveys a different meaning to different people, and its evolution over time in relation to exercising hegemonic power isn't as clear cut as something like the Scramble for Africa. The forceable instillation of democracy in countries through coup or war is an obvious example in the modern world, but for the US to counter the threat of superpowers can require preemptive action or the maintenance of global systems that allow the projection of US power, such as trade routes or strategic geopolitical positions, or even economic institutions.
What's difficult about advocating for the US to take a defensive role in sustaining their hegemony is that it is a proactive endeavor, and as the post-Cold War neoliberal era winds down (as it currently is), new challenges will require the U.S. to draw a line in the sand in certain hotspots where proxy conflicts are bound to emerge, the Koreas being a prime example. Countering China at this point in time would mean countering North Korea, and the only way to defensively do that is if they provoke conflict amid the breaking of tensions (as Trump almost did in 2017 by wanting to pull out dependents from South Korea), which would mean the deaths of thousands in Seoul. Alternatively, playing the waiting game allows them to build their ballistic missile and nuclear programs, which in the long-run could be damning for the stability of the region. So not being proactive can really lead to the loss of ground, especially in South Korea where they serve militarily as a position of forward defense, alongside the whole region that is protected under our nuclear umbrella. We should avoid situations like Iran and Iraq for both moral and strategic reasons, but having a solely reactive foreign policy has its dangers, too. But does that count as imperialism? Not sure, but the threat of hard power is necessary to retain the influence of soft power.
While I understand the argument being made by Castro, I feel like his proposal of decriminalizing illegal border crossings would be a costly policy to advocate for in the general. I don't get how he demolishes Beto by insisting that every Democratic candidate adopt it... at all.
I think people are weighing style over substance here.
I think people are weighing style over substance here.
I mean if he was going to try and masquerade something why pick such a famous person which invites so much more scrutiny towards his personal life? But this is a derail ITT I think , it's neither here nor there
Wait. You're confused why people who don't want us interfering with other countries don't think we should interfere with other countries?
Beto was saying the tragic death of the father and child that recently tried to cross the Rio Grande should not have happened because America should have let them in, and should not put people in cages.
Castro was completely justified in pointing out how Beto's rhetoric here didn't match his voting record, and if you want to accuse someone of style over substance how about the candidate who was trying to answer questions in Spanish unprompted.
No, it's that they're real mad when the US does something, but don't care when China/Russia do something.
The statute that Castro wants to strike down has legitimate enforcement uses... Utterly decriminalizing border crossings is unnecessary if you don't have a DHS that has a family separation policy, turns away people seeking asylum, etc...
I understand that there are already laws on the book to deal with things like weapons smuggling and illegal trafficking, but I don't think that it's a winning argument politically to decriminalize border crossings. This would be hugely contentious in the general!
It was a cheap shot by Castro... a pivot from the issue at hand (Beto is actually quite solid on immigration and his plan fairly couldn't be described in the time frame allotted during the debate) ... and it was clearly targeted at Beto because Castro has no viable path to victory without taking Texas.
This is too nuanced a position for a lot of people that make American imperialism their big issue. It's frustrating seeing it used a cudgel to wield against certain Democrats because it loses its potency as a legitimate complaint when the same people champion someone like Tulsi
Sorry but none of those are arguments Beto was making. If your rhetoric and your voting record don't stack up, that's fair game.
Castro exposed that.
It's been said before but jesus beto was out of his league - he was fidgeting all the time, looked completely lost like an overprepped child at a spelling bee, and could not react to the shots fired. Complete trainwreck in the first half.
Warren was good on the first questions, she is a pretty good orator, but she really needs to step up on the foreign policy questions - that's where the president has a lot of powers independent on how the house and senate looks.
Castro raising his possibilities of going for a Texas seat, perhaps even potential VP for someone like Biden, completely trashed Beto and had pretty precise answers.
deBlasio excels in these kind of shouting matches and was probably able to push up the chart by 1% meaning he passed half the field... Inslee was solid in this format as well, can imagine people googling this guy during the debate. His downfall is that many seem to think he was deBlasio..
all the campfire storytellers, klob, beto and booker were exposed as mediocre political debaters.
worst characters at debate: the spectres of delayne's dad, uncle and cousin., Chuck fuckin Todd,.Tulsi's sister, the specter of underpaid Spanish teachers across urban America.
Warren was good on the first questions, she is a pretty good orator, but she really needs to step up on the foreign policy questions - that's where the president has a lot of powers independent on how the house and senate looks.
Castro raising his possibilities of going for a Texas seat, perhaps even potential VP for someone like Biden, completely trashed Beto and had pretty precise answers.
deBlasio excels in these kind of shouting matches and was probably able to push up the chart by 1% meaning he passed half the field... Inslee was solid in this format as well, can imagine people googling this guy during the debate. His downfall is that many seem to think he was deBlasio..
all the campfire storytellers, klob, beto and booker were exposed as mediocre political debaters.
worst characters at debate: the spectres of delayne's dad, uncle and cousin., Chuck fuckin Todd,.Tulsi's sister, the specter of underpaid Spanish teachers across urban America.
Last edited:
Completely agree with all of this. Especially about Beto; trainwreck indeed!
Entirely disagree.
Beto was describing a full immigration reform policy and was specifically focusing on treatment of asylum seekers. Castro juked, focusing on one specific statute and tried to broaden out the question to all illegal immigrants... Beto totally brought up the legitimate DHS applications of the statute that would allow people (e.g. smugglers) to be searched at the border even though he specifically said he would not detain.
I don't think most people on the stage would agree with Castro's stance on it (Tim Ryan did, lol), because campaigning on decriminalizing illegal border crossings would probably be politically disastrous in the general election.
Castro came off badly here, imo. If Beto didn't have a comprehensive immigration policy already laid out I might be more sympathetic to Castro, but what he did was a disingenuous gotcha moment calculated to hobble his main rival in TX.
Which isn't to say that I feel that Beto performed admirably overall, or that I wouldn't much rather have either of them running for TX Senate.
But Beto is the one who drew the link between the current laws and the incident in question.
Now, if he wants to change those laws, that's good, but he can't unilaterally absolve himself of responsibility of support he gave them, which was Castro's point.
He can't have it every which way here.