Politics First Contact

[Guard Dog]

Gabbard? Never say never but I really doubt it. Not only has she said "no" repeatedly a third party bid would do her far more harm than good.

There is a hard reality everyone who runs as a third party candidate must face: you are not going to win. The Libertarian candidates understand this. That is why we run candidates like Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Bob Barr, and Harry Browne. They are all capable and competent politicians but they are also older with their careers behind them rather than before them. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 & 2016. The objective of his candidacy was not to make him President. The objective was to get 5% of the popular vote and achieve Major Party status for the LP. Ditto with Bob Barr in 2008 although I voted for McCain that year. These guys knew what they were doing. In modern US politics you have to play a "long game" to get on the debate stage. It is virtually impossible to do now what Perot did in '92. 

Gabbard is 37 years old with a career in front of her. She has staked out some turf in the Democrat party no one else is standing on. Her attacks on the DNC as an institution have made her unpopular right now, but that can change in one election cycle. She is to the right of Sanders and the left of the DNC. She is the only candidate talking about non-interventionism which will make her popular with the right. She is a candidate with a real shot at future success if she is careful. Particularly if a "safe" candidate like Biden goes up there and loses to Trump.  But also if a crazy left winger goes out there and loses to Trump. But if she bolts to the Green Party, it's over. 

The Green Party in the US is a hot mess. They have never had 50 state ballot access for one of their candidates. In 2016 Jill Stein was only on the ballot in 45 states. Which was the most ever for a Green candidate. As of today the 2020 Green Candidate is only on the ballot in 21 states. Still some time to improve that but it is running out quickly. Running as a Green right now is Quixotic. 

Just to contrast the LP has a state party in all 50 states plus Puerto Rico & Guam. The LP candidate will be on the ballot in all 50 states and has been every year since 1992. One caveat though, over the years since '92 the LP has not existed in every state so the candidate was on the ballot as a independent. But now we are fielding a state party and candidates in all 50. 

Just contrast the two organizations, LP & GP. The LP is a lot more organized with better resources and still a Presidential run is hopeless if your goal is to actually be elected. But if you are willing to go out and further the future gains of the party that is attainable. But even to come to the LP would be a bad move for Gabbard. If she sticks to her guns, stays in the Democrat Party, and stands on the ground she has staked out she actually COULD become President someday. Just not next year likely. 

[ComradeYellow]

*whistles* not gonna spill the beans!  I do love the critical thinking I've generated though. 

Last reveal: it's not Gabbard.

Edited November 30, 2019 by ComradeMaster

[ComradeYellow]

8 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Other than that I don't see 3rd party doing anytging other than taking votes from Dems.

1/2 of Americans are fed up with both parties so let's just say that if we field a candidate that can attract most independents and half of the Democrats,  we win!  Now with Bloomberg in the race it's becoming even more crowded.  It'll be like the 1860 election all over again.  A crowded field with the clear champion coming out on top.

Oh and young people, you gotta grab the young people en masse.  Something Ron Paul was never able to accomplish, despite his spot on foreign policy approach. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by ComradeMaster

[Hurlshort]

Oprah!

[smjjames]

Except that it wasn't just a crowded field, one of the Democrats literally split into two and the Republican party rising out of the ashes of the breakup of the Whigs filled the vacuum. It's a kind of situation that we haven't seen in modern history. As much internal fighting and despair as there has been on both sides (Republicans pre-2016 and Democrats since), neither party seems like they'll literally split into two and decide on two different candidates. Sure, there is a pretty big split between the moderates and liberals/progressives, but if a literal split didn't happen in 2016, I'm not sure a split would ever actually happen in today's conditions.

Still, as GD said, the fact that the Green party isn't as organized as the Libertarians and is only on the ballot in 21 states is a pretty major obstacle to getting half the Democrats. Not to mention that whatever your secret weapon is, they or it is going to have to become as visible as the top runners at this point fast because visibility is key.

[ShadySands]

4 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

Oprah!

Stedman?

[Guard Dog]

Majority of surveyed Republicans think Trump is a better president than Lincoln. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472460-poll-majority-of-republicans-say-trump-better-president-than-lincoln

In my own opinion only that isn't a terribly high bar to meet. I don't share the general public's or history's rosy recollection of the Lincoln administration. But I am absolutely not a "ends justify the means" kind of guy. 

[ComradeYellow]

 

16 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Majority of surveyed Republicans think Trump is a better president than Lincoln. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472460-poll-majority-of-republicans-say-trump-better-president-than-lincoln

In my own opinion only that isn't a terribly high bar to meet. I don't share the general public's or history's rosy recollection of the Lincoln administration. But I am absolutely not a "ends justify the means" kind of guy. 

Republicans are delusional racists and Christian Zionists through and through so of course they would say that!  Any cult leaders followers would say that of their Messiah.  He's an embarrassment to U.S. history and just an offshoot of Reagan.

Also it's anachronistic to judge Lincoln with a 21st century lens.  The slavery issue was deeply divisive and agonizing politically at the time and someone with an iron fist had to rise up and deal with the situation once and for all.  War is Hell.

Edited December 1, 2019 by ComradeMaster

[Skarpen]

28 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

 

Republicans are delusional racists and Christian Zionists through and through so of course they would say that! 

Hey. A quick question. How quickly would  user get a warning if the post was about Democrats?

[Amentep]

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ. Personal attacks that are intended to cause unwanted attention, embarrassment, or harm will not be tolerated.

[Bartimaeus]

49 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Hey. A quick question. How quickly would  user get a warning if the post was about Democrats?

Good question: how quickly did you get a warning for this one?

On 11/8/2019 at 5:19 PM, Skarpen said:

Impeachment investigation is inherently flawed because it's democrats. They are evil and want to enslave people.

 

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, ComradeMaster said:

 

Republicans are delusional racists and Christian Zionists through and through so of course they would say that!  Any cult leaders followers would say that of their Messiah.  He's an embarrassment to U.S. history and just an offshoot of Reagan.

Also it's anachronistic to judge Lincoln with a 21st century lens.  The slavery issue was deeply divisive and agonizing politically at the time and someone with an iron fist had to rise up and deal with the situation once and for all.  War is Hell.

First of all your generalization about Republicans is wrong. There are numerous dirtbags who gravitate to all political parties for reasons. Generally speaking Republican voters are just people who want the government to do some things but not do others. Just like the Democrats want the government to do other things but not some other different things. 

Second you probably should read a few books about Lincoln, the US civil war, and the years leading up to it before you attempt to comment on it. Because every word you said was wrong.

[ComradeYellow]

26 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Second you probably should read a few books about Lincoln, the US civil war, and the years leading up to it before you attempt to comment on it. Because every word you said was wrong.

 

I've read plenty of sources on the Civil War and I'm not wrong!  It was just another case of reactionaries trying to resist against modernization and the dirty word "slavery" happened to be the underlying kicker that launched the Civil War  The Republicans nominated Lincoln because he was, at the time, considered a moderate by their parties staunchly anti-Slavery and pro industrial platform.

 

47 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Good question: how quickly did you get a warning for this one?

 

I'm not a Democrat, I absolutely despise their neoliberal approach to globalization and economics, and their "progressive" wings limp wristed attempt at curbing it, so I cannot speak for them, but isn't it modern Republicans who are more obsessed with keeping the upper strata white and proper and keeping the lower strata poor and dependent on their fiscal program and not offer any sort of alternative government jobs, and educational program?

[Hurlshort]

I'd post the Billy Madison meme, but that would probably get me a warning.

[Skarpen]

3 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

 but isn't it modern Republicans who are more obsessed with keeping the upper strata white and proper and keeping the lower strata poor and dependent on their fiscal program and not offer any sort of alternative government jobs, and educational program?

Yeah... that's why Trump politics lowered the number of POC on foodstamps and got the lowest unemployment rate for them while Dems are running on skin color reparations.

[Guard Dog]

Steve Bullock is out of the race. He is the only Jacksonian Democrat that was running. Hell, he's one of the few left in existence. I would have voted for him had he been nominated.  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/2/steve-bullock-democrat-ends-struggling-presidentia/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=pushnotify&utm_medium=push

So the Dems have just one chance to get my vote: Tulsi Gabbard. I'd still vote for her despite some recent misgivings. The rest of them? No chance in hell. 

[Malcador]

14 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Hey. A quick question. How quickly would  user get a warning if the post was about Democrats?

You're not supposed to point out that you're Sharp_One.

[Guard Dog]

Sestak is out. Never heard of him? Probably why he's out. So... what? 17 now?  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/former-pa-congressman-joe-sestak-exits-presidential-race/ar-BBXC296?ocid=spartanntp

[HoonDing]

Call of Duty already proved female presidents are a disaster.

[Guard Dog]

"New york state rifle & pistol association inc. v. city of new york, new York" is being argued before the Supreme Court. The gist of the case is New York City, which seems to take delight in tormenting it's citizens with nanny laws when it isn't stopping and frisking them or having cops beat the holy hell out of them for no reason, passed a law that said legal gun owners in the city could not remove their firearms from their homes  and take them out of new York city. In the city they could only take them to designated ranges. The second part is one thing, the first was needlessly heavy handed. So the new york state rifle & pistol association has sued and it is now in front of the SCOTUS. Here is the thing though, the City changed the law. So the complaint is now moot. But the Court is hearing it anyway. All indications are they are gearing up to hand down a landmark ruling on gun rights. Heller affirmed ownership as a individual right. MacDonald affirmed the incorporation  of the right. But  both specifically dealt with ownership in the home. This case could expand into carrying in public.

I am conflicted here. I am a staunch supporter of  liberty of every stripe. Gun rights most of all because that is the one "they" are trying to hard to strip away. But I am also 1000% opposed to Judicial Activism. And taking up a case where the legal complaint is already moot is a text book example of it. As much as I would applaud an expansion or gun rights, or more accurately a curtailment of the government's ability to take them, I don't want it done like this. The ends do not justify the means.

[Gromnir]

8 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

 

So the Dems have just one chance to get my vote: Tulsi Gabbard. I'd still vote for her despite some recent misgivings. The rest of them? No chance in hell. 

the more we learn of gabbard, the more we dislike. no doubt gd feels same 'bout all the candidates, but am suspecting gabbard's strong (albeit extreme limited) appeal is 'cause o' a single issue: anti-interventionism. 

Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend

anti-interventionism is a BIG issue, and can see how it could out balance all other issues, particular with combat veterans.  sure, she ain't genuine anti-interventionism as she favors increased use o' drone strikes and special forces, but majority o' troops would be brought home if gabbard got her way. perhaps is more to her that gd likes, but for most folks we speak to, bring troops home is the singular issue which sets her apart in a positive way.

am actual not certain what is gabbard's campaign goals, 'cause her support in hawaii is actual diminishing as is her general support in the democratic party even as she campaigns national. doesn't appear to be a snowball's chance in kilauea's crater she will get the democrat nomination for President, and we can't see anybody choosing her for a running mate. steady 3% won't cut it. additional, gabbard has not yet announced she will run again for her Congressional seat. the most obvious challenger for gabbard at home is a democrat who is also a combat veteran and has been gobbling up endorsements from former governors and organizations. as such her future as a democrat, even in her home state, appears tenuous and her presidential candidacy is hurting her staus w/i the party and 'mongst her own constituents.

am not seeing a political future for gabbard w/o a party change, but nobody else wants her. republicans love her when she speaks o' flaws in democrat party, but not so much when she speaks o' domestic issues. traditional libertarians is gonna have a problem with her given her stance on lgbt issues and her label as an islamophobe. cozy up with assad and modi don't look good anywhere save for rt broadcasts. other than anti-interventionism, her only broad source o' appeal is her anti-hillary position, and such a position is hardly unique in 2019.

am kinda opposite o' gd. more we learn 'bout gabbard, and more we see her, the less likely we would vote for her. with a few notable exceptions such as harris, steyer and williamson, is hardly anybody we like less than gabbard.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

the more we learn of gabbard, the more we dislike. no doubt gd feels same 'bout all the candidates, but am suspecting gabbard's strong (albeit extreme limited) appeal is 'cause o' a single issue: anti-interventionism. 

Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend

anti-interventionism is a BIG issue, and can see how it could out balance all other issues, particular with combat veterans.  sure, she ain't genuine anti-interventionism as she favors increased use o' drone strikes and special forces, but majority o' troops would be brought home if gabbard got her way. perhaps is more to her that gd likes, but for most folks we speak to, bring troops home is the singular issue which sets her apart in a positive way.

am actual not certain what is gabbard's campaign goals, 'cause her support in hawaii is actual diminishing as is her general support in the democratic party even as she campaigns national. doesn't appear to be a snowball's chance in kilauea's crater she will get the democrat nomination for President, and we can't see anybody choosing her for a running mate. steady 3% won't cut it. additional, gabbard has not yet announced she will run again for her Congressional seat. the most obvious challenger for gabbard at home is a democrat who is also a combat veteran and has been gobbling up endorsements from former governors and organizations. as such her future as a democrat, even in her home state, appears tenuous and her presidential candidacy is hurting her staus w/i the party and 'mongst her own constituents.

am not seeing a political future for gabbard w/o a party change, but nobody else wants her. republicans love her when she speaks o' flaws in democrat party, but not so much when she speaks o' domestic issues. traditional libertarians is gonna have a problem with her given her stance on lgbt issues and her label as an islamophobe. cozy up with assad and modi don't look good anywhere save for rt broadcasts. other than anti-interventionism, her only broad source o' appeal is her anti-hillary position, and such a position is hardly unique in 2019.

am kinda opposite o' gd. more we learn 'bout gabbard, and more we see her, the less likely we would vote for her. with a few notable exceptions such as harris, steyer and williamson, is hardly anybody we like less than gabbard.

HA! Good Fun!

Actually Gabbard has announced she will not seek reelection to Congress in 2020. As for where she can go, there is nowhere else TO go. She is not a Republican. She is not a libertarian. One issue does not a marriage make. The Green Party is a straight waste of time. Might as well stay put. The Democrats are on the crux of a generational change. The Clinton's influence is waning. If Biden gets nominated and goes out there an loses the lefties will take over for 2024. She is a lefty on all but 2-3 positions. With that crowd her criticisms of the DNC might even look virtuous to the new party bosses 4 years down the road. Of course that crowd is all about ideological purity so she might well find no forgiveness for those 2-3 issues where she does not conform to their orthodoxy. If Biden goes out there and wins, she's done. The Clinton influence is extended a little while longer, no party shake up. She will be screwed. If the nominee is one of the crazy lefties and they win she will have to bide her time, seek a Senate seat , etc. If the crazy lefty loses she is the one candidate for 2024 that can appeal to the left and peel off a few Republicans. 

Like you, the more I hear from her the less I like her. But she is the only candidate even talking about non-intervention so she would get my vote on that issue alone. That is saying something for me. I don't want to see Trump get re-elected but seeing him replaced by any of the Democrats is not a desirable alternative for me. Trump is not "ethically challenged". He has no ethics. But the Democrats are the anti-liberty party. Should I trade a dishonest authoritarian for a honest one? Not an upgrade in my estimation when I'm still stuck with an authoritarian. So I'll vote for some LP nobody. You might call that a wasted vote. I call it a principled one. To quote John Quincy Adams "Always vote on principle though you may vote alone".  

[Gromnir]

you make far too much o' clinton. is not clinton gabbard needs worry 'bout. obama got elected in part 'cause he were selling a pivot away from clinton. in fact, obama ran against clinton. criticizing clinton does not hurt gabbard any more than it hurts sanders.

however, gabbard routine and public criticized obama... on fox.  

clinton ain't gabbard's problem. gaining clinton animosity is, we suspect, one o' the few things keeping gabbard in the race. 

50 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Like you, the more I hear from her the less I like her. But she is the only candidate even talking about non-intervention so she would get my vote on that issue alone.

this is our concern 'bout gabbard. in spite o' all the negatives one may see in her and her campaign, a single issue, which she is kinda less than full transparent 'bout, is the issue which has folks preternatural loyal to her.  

am thinking as much as we dislike what gabbard stands for on a whole range o' issues, am thinking it is a good thing to have somebody taking an aggressive anti-interventionist stand. is an issue worthy o' discussion. however, we would prefer if just 'bout any other candidate were championing anti-intervention, 'cause she is an otherwise terrible candidate in our estimation.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

@Gromnir you are mistaking what I mean about the "Clinton influence". I am not referring to actions or desires of either individual in that term. Rather the organization that has built up around and because of them over the years. Quite a few people in positions of power in the DNC are there only because of their affiliation with either or both Clintons. When someone refers to the "Clinton wing" of the party it's not necessarily a reference to the Clintons. themselves.

I would love to hear anti-intervention from one of the others but at this point it would be such a reversal they would not be credible. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

@Gromnir you are mistaking what I mean about the "Clinton influence". I am not referring to actions or desires of either individual in that term. Rather the organization that has built up around and because of them over the years. Quite a few people in positions of power in the DNC are there only because of their affiliation with either or both Clinton's. When someone refers to the "Clinton wing" of the party it's not necessarily a reference to the Clintons. 

am getting it. is why we mentioned obama, who ran against not only a clinton, but the clinton establishment. sure, the clinton era folks has had a strong influence on the party, but particular following hillary's embarrassing failure against an almost as unpopular trump in 2016, those who have connections to the clinton establishment incurred a stain to their collective reputations beyond even what they suffered when obama took down hillary in 2008. 

again, one of gabbard's selling points is the animosity she has drawn from old guard democrats and clinton folks. in 2019 is not particular risky to set self apart from clinton folks. in fact, is an advantage. 

HA! Good Fun!