Following the recent round of debates I definitely think the race is becoming closer, and the margin of error is growing slimmer. To me this is the exciting time in politics where the legitimate contenders separate themselves from the people who might be polling at minuscule amounts. Here’s to the next few weeks when the race becomes tighter and the picture of potential nominee becomes that much clearer.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
nope nope nope not going to happen until past January, still going to be 10+
You’re most likely right, but one can hope that at least the field will get a bit closer
Maybe there’s legitimate reason to assume that Russia is trying to prop up Tulsi?
- Someone (Chris Cooper) on her campaign staff is heavily associated with the Russian governmen
- She was vetted for Trumps cabinet
- Condones the role of Wikileaks in the 2016 election
- Claimed the US was arming Al Queda in the fourth debate
- She harped on regime change wars during the last debate and is an Assad apologist
- Said it’s “time to move on” after Barr released his heavily redacted Muller Report summary
- Says indicting Trump would lead to a civil war
And the “Hillary's out here showing us that just when you thought she couldn't get less despicable, she does this lmao” is wayyy old now. 2016 Clinton twisted herself into a pretzel trying to please everyone and it fell flat, but 2019 Clinton is a different animal and you haven’t been paying attention if you don’t notice that. She also spoke openly about Trump being a Russia puppet in 2016 and was 100% correct about that. She has years of foreign policy experience with which to make this kind of assumption. You can think she’s a center-right politician or whatever but Clinton is one of the most qualified political figures to make this kind of statement.
Last edited:
So if i think (for example) that the usa should cooperate with putin on Syria, do I become a russian "asset"?
Being vetted for a cabinet doesn't make you a Russian asset. It's like... procedure lmao.
Condoning the role of wikileaks is an opinion someone holds.
US did arm Al Qaeda at the very least indirectly by arming Saudi.
Harping on regime change wars doesn't make you a Russian asset. "Assad apologist" is a smear used to discredit her.
It IS time to move on after the Mueller Report.
Not sure if indicting Trump would leave to civil war but that's an opinion. Not evidence of her being a Russian plant.
Don't know much about the first guy you mentioned but of all the bullet points you listed that's the only one that even mentions Russia. So uh....
What Hillary said was that Russia was grooming her and she'd run third party. She has repeatedly stated that she wouldn't run third party. And there's no evidence of Russia grooming her, which is a very lofty smear.
Can you definitively prove that she was right for Trump being a Russia puppet?
Foreign policy experience doesn't mean you get a free pass to smear people. No one is "qualified" to be throwing around baseless smears. This is literally becoming Cold War round 2 jfc.
Also am I a Russian asset now for being against regime change war? I literally have had 0 contact with Russians or whatever.
Democrats need to let go of this Russia shit and just run someone with a campaign that speaks to the hearts of the American people who will actually enact progressive policies that will help people. Trump's term is almost over anyways. Hillary is being a clown.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...dria-ocasio-cortez-bernie-sanders-endorsement
"But that tale was backed up by substance. Ocasio-Cortez has continued to matter, not because of who she is, but because of what she stands for. She is an open democratic socialist, she talks about prioritizing the needs of working people of all races, and she’s presented bold new proposals like the Green New Deal to build a better future for them.
Ilhan Omar, who’s also endorsing Sanders, has done much the same. For her, “the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work,” and Trump’s racist populism is an effort to “prevent the solidarity of working people”. These are not radical sentiments – they’re things that any socialist or social democrat would have said throughout the last century and a half. But they absolutely befuddle a media class who can only see politics through the lens of identity."
"Sanders, unlike Warren, isn’t a lone technocrat doing battle against special interests’s the leader of a movement with clear objectives and a unifying theory of change. And whenever Sanders calls it quits (be it in July, November, or after years of executive power), Ocasio-Cortez has positioned herself to be his successor.
At the very least, her bold statement on Saturday should put an end to corporate Democrats saying that they “love her” but hate her “interrupting”, “yelling”, old white male mentor." altho i do not think sanders should ever be described as her mentor, they are just both substantive progressives that share a base
and
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/17/squad-bernie-sanders-progressive-2020
"
The Squad are unashamedly progressive. Sanders is the most progressive candidate. The fact that Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Tlaib are backing him should come as little surprise. And yet the idea that female politicians would endorse an old white guy instead of Warren, an old white woman, seemed to throw a number of people for a loop.
Jane Eisner, for example, director of academic affairs at Columbia Journalism School tweeted: “I find it fascinating that women of color overlook female and minority candidates to endorse a white guy. Is ‘identity politics’ over? Is ideology more important than race and gender? Genuinely curious.”
I’ll tell you what I find fascinating: the fact that the concept of “identity politics” has become so thoroughly distorted that people seem to think it means voting for the candidate that looks most like you, or shares your sexual preferences, their policies be damned. The idea that “women of colour” would align themselves with a candidate simply because of their sex or skin colour is incredibly condescending."
sad day when electoral political discourse has mobilized 'identity politics' to this level of reductionism
"But that tale was backed up by substance. Ocasio-Cortez has continued to matter, not because of who she is, but because of what she stands for. She is an open democratic socialist, she talks about prioritizing the needs of working people of all races, and she’s presented bold new proposals like the Green New Deal to build a better future for them.
Ilhan Omar, who’s also endorsing Sanders, has done much the same. For her, “the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work,” and Trump’s racist populism is an effort to “prevent the solidarity of working people”. These are not radical sentiments – they’re things that any socialist or social democrat would have said throughout the last century and a half. But they absolutely befuddle a media class who can only see politics through the lens of identity."
"Sanders, unlike Warren, isn’t a lone technocrat doing battle against special interests’s the leader of a movement with clear objectives and a unifying theory of change. And whenever Sanders calls it quits (be it in July, November, or after years of executive power), Ocasio-Cortez has positioned herself to be his successor.
At the very least, her bold statement on Saturday should put an end to corporate Democrats saying that they “love her” but hate her “interrupting”, “yelling”, old white male mentor." altho i do not think sanders should ever be described as her mentor, they are just both substantive progressives that share a base
and
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/17/squad-bernie-sanders-progressive-2020
"
The Squad are unashamedly progressive. Sanders is the most progressive candidate. The fact that Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Tlaib are backing him should come as little surprise. And yet the idea that female politicians would endorse an old white guy instead of Warren, an old white woman, seemed to throw a number of people for a loop.
Jane Eisner, for example, director of academic affairs at Columbia Journalism School tweeted: “I find it fascinating that women of color overlook female and minority candidates to endorse a white guy. Is ‘identity politics’ over? Is ideology more important than race and gender? Genuinely curious.”
I’ll tell you what I find fascinating: the fact that the concept of “identity politics” has become so thoroughly distorted that people seem to think it means voting for the candidate that looks most like you, or shares your sexual preferences, their policies be damned. The idea that “women of colour” would align themselves with a candidate simply because of their sex or skin colour is incredibly condescending."
sad day when electoral political discourse has mobilized 'identity politics' to this level of reductionism
Last edited:
Doesn't really matter what your point is or isn't, going onto Tucker Carlson's show to defend or talk about pretty much anything is a bad look.
Isn't she a WOC anyway? What's she doing on that white supremacist piece of shit's platform?
edit: talking about Tulsi Gabbard if it wasn't obvious.
Isn't she a WOC anyway? What's she doing on that white supremacist piece of shit's platform?
edit: talking about Tulsi Gabbard if it wasn't obvious.
The point is "person I don't like who I disagree with is a Russian plant" is bad and needs to be debunked we don't need Cold War round 2 or smears running amok. They can say other things about Tulsi that isn't "She's being groomed by the Russians"
Yeah guys, Tulsi's just willing to sell out to dictators worldwide. It just means she's beholden to numerous hostile foreign interests l m a o
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/14...dictators-but-hillary-clinton-befriends-them/
"selling out to dictators" is par for the course in american politics. you could criticize her for supporting these dictators for reasons other than crude geopolitical interest, i guess, altho typically people prefer a principled stance
If that along with your other opinions and potential voter demographics are amenable to being supported by Russia.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...20-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261
Again, Gabbard doesn’t have to knowingly be a Russia asset. And if she sees enough buzz online about her running third party, maybe she’ll change her mind about declining to run third party
Read the above. Grooming doesn’t imply direct contact by any stretch. And none of those things in isolation make you a Russian asset, but together it makes a pretty convincing case. She has opinions on foreign policy matters that heavily align with Russia. All it takes is the Russia online propaganda farm to push your star from there, and be someone who has an attention seeking mentality. Any of the lower tier candidates, yang, castro, beto, gabbard, all have that personality. There’s been rumors circulating for years that Gabbard may have been raised in a cult (even when she was Vice Chair of the DNC in 2015 and a rising star in the party), and people who were raised in cults are very suggestible to certain types of behavior. And a promise to not run third party is just that - a promise. If she feels she was screwed by the DNC (and the DNC’s liberal elite ally google) she could easily decide to run third party.
As for Russia, you don’t think a country that interfered in the 2016 election in several ways, through social media propaganda and trolls farms as well as hacking state voter registration databases? And they’re set to continue doing that in 2020, although we’ve made some progress with paper voting machines. How is that not relevant? It’s a national security threat ffs.
highly suggest reading this article that goes into depth debunking the very nbc article you just linked Celticpride
“
To justify its claim that Gabbard is the Kremlin’s candidate, NBC stated, “analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they’ve spotted ‘chatter’ related to Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns.”
What NBC — amazingly — concealed is a fact that reveals its article to be a journalistic fraud: That same firm, New Knowledge, was caught just six weeks ago engaging in a massive scam to create fictitious Russian troll accounts on Facebook and Twitter in order to claim that the Kremlin was working to defeat Democratic Senate nominee Doug Jones in Alabama. The New York Times, when exposing the scam, quoted a New Knowledge report that boasted of its fabrications: “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the [Roy] Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.'””
“
To justify its claim that Gabbard is the Kremlin’s candidate, NBC stated, “analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they’ve spotted ‘chatter’ related to Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns.”
What NBC — amazingly — concealed is a fact that reveals its article to be a journalistic fraud: That same firm, New Knowledge, was caught just six weeks ago engaging in a massive scam to create fictitious Russian troll accounts on Facebook and Twitter in order to claim that the Kremlin was working to defeat Democratic Senate nominee Doug Jones in Alabama. The New York Times, when exposing the scam, quoted a New Knowledge report that boasted of its fabrications: “We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the [Roy] Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet.'””
its politically expedient to claim anyone that doesnt fit with 100% of the established views is therefore an enemy of the state; what profit does the DNC see in an antiwar / diplomacy stance? this is why the DNC slanders anyone who isnt the favorite child, look at evidence of media bias on Sanders, Williamson, now Gabbard. The left eating their own is true, and you’re blind if you don’t see it
Celticpride if russia really is the kind of threat the american mainstream media makes it out to be (doubtful) and if some american presidential candidates are indeed russian assets, the intelligence agencies have plenty of ways of ensuring those people do not make it to the top. dont be naive. if you think the american "powers that be" would ever let a manchurian candidate rise to become the most publicly powerful person in the whole ass country, i have another bridge to sell you
Yeah it does, you don't get to be Hillary Clinton/a believer in her and say "she is being groomed!!"' and then get to walk it back and say "hold on, hold on, I didn't mean that she was actually working with the Russians..."
This is no different to mccarthyism. Instead of believing in communist ideals, you just have a "pro Russia" political opinion and your view can be discarded as a "russian agent"
Do you think the DNC did not 'interfere' in the nomination of Hillary Clinton?
"Grooming" as a choice of words DOES imply direct contact.
Also those things don't make a convincing case, which is why so much outrage has spurred around this recently. Her opinions aligning with Russian ones in some cases don't mean she is groomed by Russia. Is it fair to say that Pete Buttigieg is "Groomed by Saudi Arabia" because his foreign policy opinions would be aligned with Saudi Arabia? Of course not. It implies a lot more than "they agree on this issue"- it literally implies contact.
The whole cult thing? Really? Stop bringing in your speculation.
Lol what more do you want her to do than promise she won't run third party? You're literally saying "Yeah she said she wouldn't run but she might actually do it" this is literally just you making things up with no evidence.
Bring evidence or stop spreading smears.
Also read the article tcr linked
Also I understand that Russian sources made accounts to sway opinion online but like... literally anyone can do that. Israel does that all the time with adverts and lobbyists that prop up Israeli interests for example, and influencing people's thought process and perhaps voting preferences. Anyone with an account online, from any country, can do that. Corporate news and independent news can do that. The DNC and RNC can do that (and are doing it right now smearing Tulsi to affect the outcome of the election).
But was there any tampering with votes, or breaking machines, or bribing for miscounts, or any direct manipulation of the electoral process? Cuz I've still yet to see that. If so though enlighten me.
Putting aside anything else about Tulsi... her ties to hindu nationalists are disturbing and disqualifying.
I don't know the first thing about this supposed russian plant theory (though it sounds ludicrous to me), but I'm not sure why anyone should be spending time smearing someone so irrelevant anyway.
I don't know the first thing about this supposed russian plant theory (though it sounds ludicrous to me), but I'm not sure why anyone should be spending time smearing someone so irrelevant anyway.
Indeed, it does make you wonder why The Establishment is bothering to make such a big deal of her
gabbard also isn't against regime change war as long as it isn't a 'radical islamic terrorist regime' that emerges. i don't expect ppl to know russian talking points, but russia thinks it has a big problem with islamic separatists, which may make them keen to prop up certain regimes. Gabbard, like the russian talking points, transcribes anti-imperialist anti-war discourse into language that is consistent with continuing islamophobic security apparatuses and selling arms to reactionary regimes in that region. listen to ppl when they tell you who they are, cheeto relates that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it cause hes a con artist, Gabbard tells us that shes a hawk on 'islamic terror' (the pretext for all interventions in the middle east) and chides the neoliberal establishment about avoiding that term and shes been in that game for years:
Gabbard was the first U.S. official in 2017 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people to enlist him in America's struggle against ISIS. Two years before that, she stood next to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after he'd orchestrated the worst mass killings in modern history of Arab Spring protesters.
But perhaps her most disturbing transgression was her outreach to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi's militant brand of Hindu nationalism is fundamentally transforming a liberal country into an illiberal one where violent attacks on the minority Muslim population have become a daily occurrence — and not because Indian Muslims are terrorists or radical extremists, but simply because they consume beef or refuse to chant the names of Hindu gods"
ps there is an actual progressive candidate running to unseat her in hawaii.
Gabbard was the first U.S. official in 2017 to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after he used chemical weapons against his own people to enlist him in America's struggle against ISIS. Two years before that, she stood next to Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi after he'd orchestrated the worst mass killings in modern history of Arab Spring protesters.
But perhaps her most disturbing transgression was her outreach to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi's militant brand of Hindu nationalism is fundamentally transforming a liberal country into an illiberal one where violent attacks on the minority Muslim population have become a daily occurrence — and not because Indian Muslims are terrorists or radical extremists, but simply because they consume beef or refuse to chant the names of Hindu gods"
ps there is an actual progressive candidate running to unseat her in hawaii.
"Russian hacker troll farm" is simply a smear that DNC establishment use to divide us and them. Yes, these farms do exist, however their strategy is to put out skeptical information for all sides to stir up chaos. The most important part is that these information is mostly true, however it's framed differently than DNC would like you to see the issues as.
It's refreshing to see that dems in this thread is starting to catch up with 2017 republicans.
It's refreshing to see that dems in this thread is starting to catch up with 2017 republicans.
VKCA
(Virtual Circus Kareoky Act)
Remember when tik was banned because it's impossible to ever discern someone's truthots(™©®), and it doesn't matter if you're ironically racist or really racist incidentally useful to Russia's geopolitical goals or a genuine bad actor.
Jokes on you losers though who the fuck wastes their time thinking about tulsi. Idk, if I was a (state actor) / (oil oligarch invested in the continued destruction of the world for profit) I'd consider the 40 some odd pages of discourse about candidates that aren't Bernie a resounding success.
Jokes on you losers though who the fuck wastes their time thinking about tulsi. Idk, if I was a (state actor) / (oil oligarch invested in the continued destruction of the world for profit) I'd consider the 40 some odd pages of discourse about candidates that aren't Bernie a resounding success.
Idk what kind of fucking argument that is. All you're suggesting is that unprecedented corruption should be legal because Hillary Clinton did mildly shitty things in comparison. There's a difference between taking vacations in Damascus on a neo-Nazi party's dime and maintaining diplomatic ties that have been normalized for decades. Should we just start inviting China, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to interfere in the elections of NATO member states?Seriously, the fuck kind of "principles" are you talking about?
Perhaps it's saying that about Tulsi without really any backing. It's pretty much "The Failed Politician who cried Russian Hack" it's hard to falsify, and frankly it ain't healthy. We just went through two years of Mueller to come out with nothing but wasted taxpayer dollars. I also find it invredibly hypocritical, not only because Tulsi is a US Soldier as is, but as stated by a few others, Hillary is no stranger to this type of shit.
Last edited: