Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 255: A Holiday Present From Tulsi

(+) Yeah! (+)

Modi's seriously fucking up India:
https://apnews.com/cb0a460f417b5ea87d8c86b175dd4ffb

Gotta wonder how much of the democratic backsliding across the world in the past few years could have been prevented by a competent and morally credible United States

---

I just saw the Patriot Act episode on mental health and just how bad insurance companies routinely screw people over.

Being reminded of that makes me so angry how cowardly most candidates are at confronting them.

I also saw the one about Asylum and yes Trump is a next level villain, just to sate LotM's need to remind us.


---

Patriot Act is an excellent show.

Tony, Republicans are obsessed with identity politics. They just often ignore that they're the party that pushes them the hardest!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Modi's seriously fucking up India:
https://apnews.com/cb0a460f417b5ea87d8c86b175dd4ffb

Gotta wonder how much of the democratic backsliding across the world in the past few years could have been prevented by a competent and morally credible United States

You mean like a United States that nominated Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton?

---

Meanwhile.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-conviction-all-time-high-msn-news-a9260336.html

Maaaaybe Mitch was a little too blatant.

---

Or a republican party that nominated basically anyone but Donald Trump.

---

Don't say that. They could have nominated Ted Cruz. That could still be a darker timeline.

---

Ted Cruz is why I said "basically anyone".

---

Now back to my usual glaring at moderate Democrat ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll3SUyUjZEc

---

https://twitter.com/RepGosar/status/1209504003307868160

Wonder why such a charming guy's siblings made an ad endorsing his opponent last election!

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Meanwhile.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-conviction-all-time-high-msn-news-a9260336.html

Maaaaybe Mitch was a little too blatant.

Polling on impeachment is irrelevant until and unless a majority of Republicans favor removal. Elected Republicans really only fear potential primaries; the vast majority of R Senators are in safely red states.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Gotta wonder how much of the democratic backsliding across the world in the past few years could have been prevented by a competent and morally credible United States

If you're still holding onto US exceptionalism and neoliberal supremacy sure. 1 million Obamas (who is your idea of competent/moral) couldn't prevent it. The better question to ask is how much the status quo notion of morality caused the current backsliding.

---

The moral degradation of the US isn't the sole cause, but it contributed, just like Brexit did. All these trends across different countries are feeding into each other.

---

The UK has somehow managed to be ever so slightly more openly racist than we are.

I don't believe the US has ever been morally credible for even a single day of its existence

foolm0r0n posted...

If you're still holding onto US exceptionalism and neoliberal supremacy sure. 1 million Obamas (who is your idea of competent/moral) couldn't prevent it. The better question to ask is how much the status quo notion of morality caused the current backsliding.

You live in a bubble if you think Obama in any way exemplifies American exceptionalism. The man's political philosophy is based on America being a net-negative to the world, and his entire presidency was a feeble attempt to apologize for our century of liberal (classical definition) purveyorship.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

You live in a bubble if you think Obama in any way exemplifies American exceptionalism. The man's political philosophy is based on America being a net-negative to the world, and his entire presidency was a feeble attempt to apologize for our century of liberal (classical definition) purveyorship.

Missing the point to a degree bordering on delusion.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Missing the point to a degree bordering on delusion.

"You" isn't referring to foolmo, it's referring to the people who he described as believing Obama could have prevented this "backslide."

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

"You" isn't referring to foolmo, it's referring to the people who he described as believing Obama could have prevented this "backslide."

Ok that makes much more sense, but still, Obamas (false) image of American exceptionalism is no different than Trump, Dubya, or any other President in our lifetime, so if you think he was especially weak or whatever point youre making, thats straight-up Fox News propaganda about propaganda.

---

I'm saying that I don't believe Obama believed in American exceptionalism. In fact, I think he resents America at his core, so of course he was not trying be some kind of guiding geopolitical light.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

The moral degradation of the US isn't the sole cause, but it contributed, just like Brexit did. All these trends across different countries are feeding into each other.

I don't really think the US's morals have degraded. If anything, what's holding us back are the people who refuse to allow their morals to evolve. A lot of people have had their morals progress. As we move away from the religious Christian definition of morality (minus all the parts about giving money to the poor, taking care of the hungry, and treating strangers well), we start to see that our morals had failed a long time ago.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I don't really think the US's morals have degraded. If anything, what's holding us back are the people who refuse to allow their morals to evolve. A lot of people have had their morals progress. As we move away from the religious Christian definition of morality (minus all the parts about giving money to the poor, taking care of the hungry, and treating strangers well), we start to see that our morals had failed a long time ago.

The moral foundation of the US was the enlightenment, not Christian doctrine. If you believe the American moral has failed, then do you believe the enlightenment is also an antiquated school of thought?

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I'm saying that I don't believe Obama believed in American exceptionalism. In fact, I think he resents America at his core, so of course he was not trying be some kind of guiding geopolitical light.

You're definitely wrong about that!

In any case, I'm certainly not going to argue that America hasn't done bad stuff, but I'd certainly rather that we influence the world than China or Russia doing so.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

The moral foundation of the US was the enlightenment, not Christian doctrine. If you believe the American moral has failed, then do you believe the enlightenment is also an antiquated school of thought?

I disagree with this. The moral foundation of the United States was always Christianity, and that is what made it so successful. The moral foundation of the French Republic was the enlightenment, and that produced people being guillotined for being accused of political crimes, with the flimsiest of trials, after not even 5 years. And 17 constitutional systems in the last 200 years while the US has had 2.

As for failing, it has not yet failed. Although the liberals are trying!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

You're definitely wrong about that!

In any case, I'm certainly not going to argue that America hasn't done bad stuff, but I'd certainly rather that we influence the world than China or Russia doing so.

Why all the enmity for Russia? What do you have against Russia?

---

Nice troll

---

Don Jr with a late contender for most pathetic tweets of 2019 (note: the edits hes whining about happened in 2014):

https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/status/1210446288086454272?s=21

---

This is how people receive their news in 2020, through Home Alone 2!
---

I know I personally only believe what I see in Home Alone 2

In Canada

---

I'm serious LOTM. You frequently say things are bad just because Russia supports them. Why?

---

red sox 777 posted...

I'm serious LOTM. You frequently say things are bad just because Russia supports them. Why?

There are many reasons, but here's a random one of the top of my head: Russia, unlike America, murders journalists

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

There are many reasons, but here's a random one of the top of my head: Russia, unlike America, murders journalists

Yes, but that doesn't imply everything Russia does or supports is bad. It only implies Russia is evil in some sense. Just like Hillary's environmental policy might have been good even if she gave speeches to Wall Street banks for money.

---

Oh I misread your question as just "why is Russia bad"

To more directly answer you, Russia has made it extremely clear that they want to sit atop of the world order, and have decided that it's easier to tear down everyone else than to build themselves up. It's literally their goal to destroy the west.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

I know I personally only believe what I see in Home Alone 2

In Canada

SEP secretly Bandit Keith.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

The moral degradation of the US isn't the sole cause, but it contributed

Sure, but I'm rejecting both the fact that the moral degradation started in 2016 (or even 2001 if you want to be Bush focused), AND the notion that the US has led or driven this movement.

Bolsonaro is a good example. Now that Trump is around people put a spotlight on him and pretend nationalism there burst from a volcano in the last 2 years. But I've been watching my family there talk about fascism there for 20+ years. The US is very much a follower in this movement.

Now, if you were arguing that US free market capitalism could have prevented these things, I would agree... If the US still represented that abd didn't super fall behind Scandinavia etc on that.

---

Trump has now retweeted somebody directly naming someone as the alleged whistleblower

---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1210708202553249792

Well... I guess they would know?

---

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1210963665014415361?s=21

---

Yikes

---

warren supporters stay win-*scrolls down*-lmfao at that gabbard number

---

Don Imus could have literally cured cancer, and the media still would have led his obituary with the fact that he made an insufficiently-PC comment a decade ago.

---

Yeesh, all the Warren supporters shitting on Bernie dont understand that these numbers are terrible for her.

Although the irony is many of them have vote blue no matter who on their profiles and then spend every day talking shit.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Although the irony is many of them have vote blue no matter who on their profiles and then spend every day talking shit.

I've seen way more Bernie supporters talking shit about Warren than Warren supporters talking shit about Bernie.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yeesh, all the Warren supporters shitting on Bernie dont understand that these numbers are terrible for her.

I mean, if you're going to read it that way, then isn't the logical extension that Gabbard has by far the best result in that poll lol?

That's kinda why I don't buy the "actually higher numbers show less crossover appeal/voter activation" interpretation of these numbers.

I think that all things being equal, you'd like to see a higher number there than a lower one but that also that I don't really think that poll is all that informative. It's great fodder for PUMA/"Bernie or Bust" type accusations and I personally like to take away that Warren's high number here signifies her supporters have the clearest eyes about the big picture and its stakes... even that is speculation on my part that I wouldn't preach as absolute truth.

tl;dr: great poll for infighting purposes. unsure it's all that informative outside that. ...except for dunking on gabbard for that crazy outlier number lmfao.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I've seen way more Bernie supporters talking shit about Warren than Warren supporters talking shit about Bernie.

Do you read any of the Twitter posts tangentially related to Bernie?

There are dozens of anti-Bernie tweets on that last one alone, and not a single (that I see) anti-Warren one.

---

xp1337 posted...

I mean, if you're going to read it that way, then isn't the logical extension that Gabbard has by far the best result in that poll lol?

Also no, I think theres probably a threshold where even those #bluenomatterwho people just dont show up, because in the end theyd rather be right than elect not a Democrat.

---

To be clear I posted it because lmao at the Tulsi number

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also no, I think theres probably a threshold where even those #bluenomatterwho people just dont show up, because in the end theyd rather be right than elect not a Democrat.

That's convenient!

so like where is the sweet spot? Is it Booker's 80? Bloomberg's 82? Buttigieg's 92?

Aside from the disagreeing with the philosophy underlying this theory I feel it adds this additional problem - what is the "ideal" result? Or is it a nebulous idea that can shift so that it is always in support of a certain candidate? Like if you define it as "idk like 85" because that would technically make Sanders the closest (by 1 to Bloomberg) what happens when the next time the poll is run and he's no longer the closest?

It also leads to super weird results if you look at the ideology of the candidates. I'm assuming you think Sanders's 87 is a "good" result here. So, logically speaking, Bloomberg's 82 has to be the second or third best result (to Buttigieg on the other side of it), right? In what universe does that make sense? Is Bloomberg among the Top 3 candidates the Democrats could choose?

---

Oh I know, and its a pretty funny number.

The only Tulsi supporters I know are Trump supporters and one of my dumbass best friends who is Left but barely pays attention to anything.


---

Tulsi's the only Democrat I probably wouldn't bother going to the polls for. (Well if you can even call her a Democrat at this poitn). Yang's a bit iffy, but I'd still vote for him if it came down to it.

---