Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Telogrus]

Remember when Democrats (mainly the middle / upper-middle class suburbanites aka the establishment friendly ones) said that Tulsi was a DINO/Trump apologist/Russian asset/Manchurian candidate/whatever buzzword comes to their head because she didn’t want a war in Syria, Hillary made a baseless accusation of her being a Russian asset, and (probably the real reason behind the Tulsi hate) she demolished Kamala’s presidential bid? They told us that she only wanted to divide the Democrat Party, she was looking for a job on Fox News, and that she was secretly planning on running as a 3rd party candidate, or even worse, she’d endorse Trump.Well now that she has endorsed Joe Biden and proven herself to be a team player, will she get an apology from Dems? Or will we get the usual deflection, smug condescension, or moral grandstanding? Will we see any accountability? Who am I kidding, we all know that they’re just gonna ignore it

[DKjaigen]

Remember when Democrats (mainly the middle / upper-middle class suburbanites aka the establishment friendly ones) said that Tulsi was a DINO/Trump apologist/Russian asset/Manchurian candidate/whatever buzzword comes to their head because she didn’t want a war in Syria, Hillary made a baseless accusation of her being a Russian asset, and (probably the real reason behind the Tulsi hate) she demolished Kamala’s presidential bid? They told us that she only wanted to divide the Democrat Party, she was looking for a job on Fox News, and that she was secretly planning on running as a 3rd party candidate, or even worse, she’d endorse Trump.Well now that she has endorsed Joe Biden and proven herself to be a team player, will she get an apology from Dems? Or will we get the usual deflection, smug condescension, or moral grandstanding? Will we see any accountability? Who am I kidding, we all know that they’re just gonna ignore it

What she will get is a nice comfortable job.

[Telogrus]

What she will get is a nice comfortable job.

Where ?

[Beefhammer]

What she will get is a nice comfortable job.

She ain't getting shit.

[Kasierith]

The problem with Gabbard, strategically speaking, is that running on party reform and pushing for a change in course for the Democratic party doesn't work if there's already a wild card with a much, much larger presence and base. she didn't get completely pushed out because of the party being snarky. She got pushed out because of Sanders dominating her primary running point. That could change in 2024.

As for being a Russian agent, while I don't believe it is enough to say she is in cahoots, her international policies irrefutably would benefit Russia's current national strategy.

[Endus]

As for being a Russian agent, while I don't believe it is enough to say she is in cahoots, her international policies irrefutably would benefit Russia's current national strategy.

It bears repeating that "agent" and "asset" are two wildly different terms; a gullible individual who can be manipulated effectively by disinformation platforms can be considered an "asset", even if there's no direct collaboration that would warrant calling them an "agent".

[Kasierith]

It bears repeating that "agent" and "asset" are two wildly different terms; a gullible individual who can be manipulated effectively by disinformation platforms can be considered an "asset", even if there's no direct collaboration that would warrant calling them an "agent".

Agreed, there's definitely some word play going on. I don't even know if I would use the word asset though. Sanders non interventionaliat tendancies would also benefit their national strategy. And with the reverse... We wouldn't go around calling Obama an EU asset, even if he deeply prioritized rebuilding Bridges with them in his first term.

The entire thing just reeks of mud slinging to me. I don't have a good enough grasp of her platform to give a final verdict on my thoughts, since I saw early on that she was being crowded out by the really big fish... But my interest is in what policies will benefit America, not what policies might inadvertently benefit Russia.

[Lenonis]

Tulsi was a DINO/Trump apologist/Russian asset/Manchurian candidate/whatever

That she finally dropped out doesn't change that she was and still is most if not all of these, especially the first two.

Also she has just as much shot in 2024 as she did in 2020. None. Hopefully she'll lose her current seat and slink off into oblivion, or her nice commentary job at Fox News.

[Endus]

Agreed, there's definitely some word play going on. I don't even know if I would use the word asset though. Sanders non interventionaliat tendancies would also benefit their national strategy. And with the reverse... We wouldn't go around calling Obama an EU asset, even if he deeply prioritized rebuilding Bridges with them in his first term.

The entire thing just reeks of mud slinging to me. I don't have a good enough grasp of her platform to give a final verdict on my thoughts, since I saw early on that she was being crowded out by the really big fish... But my interest is in what policies will benefit America, not what policies might inadvertently benefit Russia.

Sure, it's probably mud slinging. I was just pointing out the accusation was generally that she was an asset, with the implication that she's easily led by Russia-friendly sources into doing what Russia wants. Not that she's somehow working for Russia, consciously. That she's a dupe, not a traitor.

I think Gabbard's terrible, but I don't actually agree with this. I'm just clarifying the argument.

[Dacien]

It bears repeating that "agent" and "asset" are two wildly different terms; a gullible individual who can be manipulated effectively by disinformation platforms can be considered an "asset", even if there's no direct collaboration that would warrant calling them an "agent".

I'm not really sure this translates into the real world, this distinction you've made. My understanding is that an asset is someone under the direction of an agency or administrative body.

You could hardly say an individual beyond control but who might happen to align with your goals is an asset.

[Endus]

I'm not really sure this translates into the real world, this distinction you've made. My understanding is that an asset is someone under the direction of an agency or administrative body.

You could hardly say an individual beyond control but who might happen to align with your goals is an asset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(intelligence)

"There are different categories of assets, including people who:
...
Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting."

You could've, like, just looked it up. But you didn't even bother. You just assumed I was wrong, rather than that I might possibly be right.

[Dacien]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(intelligence)

"There are different categories of assets, including people who:
...
Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting."

You could've, like, just looked it up. But you didn't even bother. You just assumed I was wrong, rather than that I might possibly be right.

I'm going to go with common usage.

[Machismo]

I'm going to go with common usage.

Is this you saying you are going to ignore the definition, and keep being wrong?

[Endus]

I'm going to go with common usage.

Wikipedia is about as "common usage" as you get.

[DKjaigen]

Where ?

No idea and frankly i dont care. Its simply how politics work. Tusli likely got something out of supporting Biden.

[CostinR]

No idea and frankly i dont care. Its simply how politics work. Tusli likely got something out of supporting Biden.

Don't be surprised if it's a cabinet position.

Remember Tulsi destroyed Kamala Harris, which ultimately helped Biden.

[Themius]

Don't be surprised if it's a cabinet position.

Remember Tulsi destroyed Kamala Harris, which ultimately helped Biden.

She did not destroy Kamala... I mean maybe for people who ignore words she did...

[Spectral]

She did not destroy Kamala... I mean maybe for people who ignore words she did...

Kamala destroyed Kamala by being immensely unlikeable, dishonest, and unappealing to progressives. Tulsi just noticed and pointed it out as it was happening.

[Theodarzna]

Where's Joe Biden?

Apparently Joe Biden is going around telling media that he "desperately wants to get in touch with the people in these times of crisis, but doesn't know how to. 'Maybe through local press conferences?'"

At the same time the Democratic Party is sounding alarm bell, because it appears that the younger generations of voters (up until age 35-ish) don't want to vote for Biden.

Given that the Democrats are running with a dementia patient who might not be aware of the Internet; And are currently very anxious over how to make sure we thoroughly means test aide to the proles and be as stingy as possible; Idk why the Dems bother.

At this rate neither party seems to want to win this election.

[Telogrus]

Seriously, where the hell is Joe Biden? He should be showing leadership right now, not hiding away somewhere and proposing ideas that Congress already came up with a week ago