Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

Any of the candidates would be lucky (and smart) to have Abrams.

Gabbard, on the other hand, is another story. I'm still unsure how self-proclaimed progressives can get behind her.

I don't get it either. The only thing on the venn diagram I see that marries progressives right now and libertarians is her anti-interventionist ideology. That issue has made strange bed fellows of her supporters.

[B-Fly]

Any of the candidates would be lucky (and smart) to have Abrams.

Gabbard, on the other hand, is another story. I'm still unsure how self-proclaimed progressives can get behind her.

Her platform overall is quite liberal/progressive, including Medicare4All, free college, criminal justice reform, environmental protection, etc. Where she's alienated progressives (and earned some love from the alt-right) is with anti-PC statements and signaling, particularly around LGBTQ+, but also other "identity politics" stuff, and with her willingness to openly antagonize the DNC and the Democratic establishment.

[B-Fly]

Oh, and another big potential endorsement is always the NEA.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Her platform overall is quite liberal/progressive, including Medicare4All, free college, criminal justice reform, environmental protection, etc. Where she's alienated progressives (and earned some love from the alt-right) is with anti-PC statements and signaling, particularly around LGBTQ+, but also other "identity politics" stuff, and with her willingness to openly antagonize the DNC and the Democratic establishment.

and opposing impeachment

[GwynnInTheHall]

I like her (Tulsi) because I can believe what she says--and fell assured that she believes it too, not just windsucking it.

I've said many times--I'm fungible on platform, I'm not on integrity.

[B-Fly]

and opposing impeachment

I had that as a subset of "her willingness to openly antagonize the DNC and the Democratic establishment", lol.

[Sour Masher]

I like her (Tulsi) because I can believe what she says--and fell assured that she believes it too, not just windsucking it.

I've said many times--I'm fungible on platform, I'm not on integrity.

What exactly is it about her that makes you believe she would be 100% behind her current stated policies if she were elected? FS has said he doesn't believe good ol' Mayor Pete, for instance, because his position seems to evolve fairly quickly, but Tulsi has also evolved/changed her platform in some ways fairly quickly too. It's not like she has the long consistent history of Bernie, for instance, so I'm wondering why she is believed to be consistent where others are not.

[GwynnInTheHall]

What exactly is it about her that makes you believe she would be 100% behind her current stated policies if she were elected? FS has said he doesn't believe good ol' Mayor Pete, for instance, because his position seems to evolve fairly quickly, but Tulsi has also evolved/changed her platform in some ways fairly quickly too. It's not like she has the long consistent history of Bernie, for instance, so I'm wondering why she is believed to be consistent where others are not.

Gabbard quit the DNC over the whole Bernie/HRC thing so that's one reason I give her the benefit of the doubt here. I also am only endorsing her for VP, she'd make a good counter balance to Bernie's Far Left looking style. He definitely (IMO) should go Diversity when choosing a VP to get past the Öld White Guy" thing. I also like that's she's served--I find the majority of military personnel have an honorable streak in them, not all, but most. She seems to have it.

People evolve on issues, but as long as they can explain why they have in a reasonable manner--I'm good with it. Changing just to boost poll numbers, is harder to reconcile and most who are just BSing have trouble doing it.

Though I wish she had voted for impeachment, she explained why she didn't and I respect her for that even though I disagree with her.

That said--I'd still prefer Abrams to Gabbard on the ticket with Bernie.

[nots]

Gabbard quit the DNC over the whole Bernie/HRC thing so that's one reason I give her the benefit of the doubt here. I also am only endorsing her for VP, she'd make a good counter balance to Bernie's Far Left looking style. He definitely (IMO) should go Diversity when choosing a VP to get past the Öld White Guy" thing. I also like that's she's served--I find the majority of military personnel have an honorable streak in them, not all, but most. She seems to have it.

People evolve on issues, but as long as they can explain why they have in a reasonable manner--I'm good with it. Changing just to boost poll numbers, is harder to reconcile and most who are just BSing have trouble doing it.

Though I wish she had voted for impeachment, she explained why she didn't and I respect her for that even though I disagree with her.

That said--I'd still prefer Abrams to Gabbard on the ticket with Bernie.

She spoke out against the Clinton DNC BS way before anyone else did and put her career in jeopardy to do so—that should carry a lot of weight. She also is active military that oppposes regime change military adventurism, which should also carry extra weight. It’s not like she was ok with what we were doing in the Middle East under Obama and now is against it because of Trump. Her view has been entirely consistent.

[GwynnInTheHall]

She spoke out against the Clinton DNC BS way before anyone else did and put her career in jeopardy to do so—that should carry a lot of weight. She also is active military that oppposes regime change military adventurism, which should also carry extra weight. It’s not like she was ok with what we were doing in the Middle East under Obama and now is against it because of Trump. Her view has been entirely consistent.

It's funny that I feel you and I see eye to eye more often than most of my progressive/left leaning brethren.

Maybe I'm a closet--conservative!


Nahhhhhh.

[Teenwolf]

I know I'm going to be the only one to say this, but I think Stacey Abrahms is an opportunist, and I don't trust her.

She was tasked with giving the response to the SOTU last year, cozying up with the DNC. That's not good. Much worse, she recently accepted a donation on behalf of a charity she runs from Michael Bloomberg for $5 Mil. She did a damn event with a photo op with Bloomberg because of his contribution. Those associations prevent me from fully trusting her.

Just my perspective. But yeah, Abrahms will likely be the VP pushed onto whoever wins.

[Teenwolf]

Bernie Sanders has already pushed out an ad with Rogan's endorsement. His reasoning is pretty great, talking about the power of Sanders' consistency.

[Sour Masher]

I know I'm going to be the only one to say this, but I think Stacey Abrahms is an opportunist, and I don't trust her.

She was tasked with giving the response to the SOTU last year, cozying up with the DNC. That's not good. Much worse, she recently accepted a donation on behalf of a charity she runs from Michael Bloomberg for $5 Mil. She did a damn event with a photo op with Bloomberg because of his contribution. Those associations prevent me from fully trusting her.

Just my perspective. But yeah, Abrahms will likely be the VP pushed onto whoever wins.

I don't know enough either way to argue against the notion that there may be truth to what you are saying with the SOTU and the DNC. The Bloomberg thing I don't get. If I am running a charity and I think that charity does good work, helps people, saves and changes lives, you better believe I am glad-handing, smiling for photos, do just about anything to show appreciation for the massive gift that will help so many. It is one thing to stand against politicians taking campaign funds from big money, but unless the charity is a fraud, or the candidate is getting a kick back in the transaction, I have no problem with a candidate taking big money to help that charity. Is someone working for a charity supposed to turn down money from someone who doesn't align perfectly with the individual ideologically?

[The Feral Slasher]

What exactly is it about her that makes you believe she would be 100% behind her current stated policies if she were elected? FS has said he doesn't believe good ol' Mayor Pete, for instance, because his position seems to evolve fairly quickly, but Tulsi has also evolved/changed her platform in some ways fairly quickly too. It's not like she has the long consistent history of Bernie, for instance, so I'm wondering why she is believed to be consistent where others are not.

lol, I don't believe most politicians, it seems a little silly to do so. And he is less believable than most. I have no idea why any Dem would support him.

[TS Garp]

lol, I don't believe most politicians, it seems a little silly to do so. And he is less believable than most. I have no idea why any Dem would support him.

I'm glad he seems to be losing momentum. I think he's an aspirational candidate; voters want him to be more than he actually is, not unlike the short-lived Beto phenomenon. He's clearly extremely bright and poised and I'm looking forward to seeing where he goes in the next few year but he doesn't have the experience yet. I've always been puzzled as to why/how he had so much more support than someone like Cory Booker, who is so much more qualified. My long-time friend who is African American says he's a reminder of every time a woman and/or African-American was passed over for someone less qualified. I don't feel it's my place as a white male to comment on that but I do think there are many nuanced racial and gender-based dynamics firmly at play here (and everywhere in the election).