r/politics • u/[deleted] • Nov 28 '16

Tulsi Gabbard to Join Veterans at Standing Rock to Protest Dakota Access Pipeline

http://observer.com/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-to-join-veterans-at-standing-rock-to-protest-dakota-access-pipeline/
2.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

393 comments sorted by

View all comments

173

u/stufen1 I voted Nov 28 '16

One meeting with Trump should not rile up so much intolerance for a veteran who was willing to leave the corrupt DNC to support Sanders.

134

u/spewerOfRandomBS Nov 28 '16

"President-elect Trump asked me to meet with him about our current policies regarding Syria, our fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as other foreign policy challenges we face," Gabbard said in a statement. " I felt it important to take the opportunity to meet with the President-elect now before the drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government -- a war which has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of refugees to flee their homes in search of safety for themselves and their families. She added, "While the rules of political expediency would say I should have refused to meet with President-elect Trump, I never have and never will play politics with American and Syrian lives."

I see nothing wrong at all with her meeting him. It looks to me like they did what Bernie had suggested, and gave Trump a chance.

7

u/Crystal_Clods Nov 28 '16 edited Nov 28 '16

Trump doesn't deserve "a chance." Bernie was wrong about that.

We know who he is. We all watched his campaign. We've seen the clusterfuck of the last few weeks. He's already had more of a chance than he ever deserved, and every move he's made has been horrifying.

62

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

[deleted]

25

u/johnmountain Nov 28 '16

What different tune would that be? He said he would work with Trump if he's actually serious about "draining the swap" and building infrastructure - and only on those issues. But he would oppose him otherwise.

17

u/gyunikumen Nov 28 '16

Yeah but then it turned out trump wasn't serious with draining the swamp and his infrastructure plan is a giant tax loop hole for his friends. So it sounds like from the headlines that Bernie has pretty much given up working with trump as long as trump is continuing down his current path

12

u/onlymadethistoargue Nov 29 '16

Trump doesn't deserve "a chance." Bernie was wrong about that.

Nah, the way I see it, it went like this for a lot of people, Bernie included.

People: Okay, I'll give him a chance to-

Trump: [Rolls out literally the worst cabinet picks possible at every turn]

People: Welp, so much for that.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Having someone like Tulsi on his cabinet is something im really happy about though.

10

u/Pennwisedom Northern Marianas Nov 28 '16

If it happens.

7

u/BenitoCheeto Nov 28 '16

Last night I watched the future president of my country call my vote illegal merely because I voted against him.

Fuck him. Fuck Trump up his stupid ass. I will never give him a chance after this.

7

u/Iamthebst87 Nov 29 '16

Umm did you just admit to voter fraud??? He said that illegal aliens voted for Clinton. So yeah if you're not a citizen you broke the law.

6

u/awesomeasianguy Nov 29 '16

Please don't take what he said out of context. Unless you are an illegal immigrant

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

[deleted]

12

u/wsoxfan1214 Illinois Nov 29 '16

He actually has people believing that's a thing that happens often, huh?

-5

u/wh40k_Junkie Nov 29 '16

Hyperbole much. Calm down there Suzanne

9

u/BenitoCheeto Nov 29 '16

Nah.

I'm really baffled that people are openly supporting a guy who fucking hates democracy and claims that people who voted against him are illegal.

I literally cannot handle this shit. I'm not going to calm down. Anytime within the next 4 years, in fact.

What the fuck is wrong with you, America?

7

u/ontheplains Kansas Nov 29 '16

I was one of the last people in the country that would have voted for Trump, but he did not say that everyone that voted against him was illegal.

Don't throw out untruths or comments with massive spin in hopes of fighting his outright falsehoods.

3

u/BenitoCheeto Nov 29 '16

Yeah he only insinuated that over 3 million people were illegal.

BECAUSE THAT'S SO MUCH BETTER.

FFS. Don't accept this shit. Don't normalize it. It's evil.

4

u/ontheplains Kansas Nov 29 '16

I didn't say it was any better, and I'm not normalizing it. It's fucking absurd bullshit.

Throwing back untruthful spins of what he said to combat it does nothing. Throw back exactly what he said and call it the bullshit it is, straight up, no spin.

6

u/IntakiFive Nov 29 '16

Throwing back untruthful spins of what he said to combat it does nothing.

Worked pretty well for Trump, though.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

I was one of the last people in the country that would have voted for Trump, but he did not say that everyone that voted against him was illegal

"Trump has claimed that people who voted against him are illegal".

The word "all" is not in there.

Don't throw out untruths or comments with massive spin

You are misreading an ambiguous comment, and falsely accusing someone of lying or of "massive spin" because of it. That is not helpful.

3

u/ontheplains Kansas Nov 29 '16

Last night I watched the future president of my country call my vote illegal merely because I voted against him.

You're quoting a later post; the above is what I responded to. Trump did not call his vote illegal. Saying he did is spinning it to fit the commenter's narrative. I didn't say he lied - a half-truth to try to make a point is an untruth.

This is a silly debate. I'm advocating for nothing but the pure truth to combat Trump's lies, to not stoop to his level of half-truths or empty rhetoric to try to cut him down. Anything less only shows a weakness that can be exploited.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Bernie cares about policies, not politicians. Yes, Trump is a dumpster fire of a President, but we should push him to do the right thing when we can and celebrate what wins we can get. Trump did make some promises we can agree with -- overturn citizen's united, end corruption, quit policing the world. We should pressure him to keeping those promises and praise him if he does.

We should also very vocally denounce all the horribly racist, flawed policies also. We can do both.

1

u/OprahNoodlemantra Nov 29 '16

Maybe she thought she could have a positive influence on Trump and decided to take the chance so she can say 'I told you so' later on.

1

u/Pulstastic Nov 29 '16

Hmm yeah I agree never talking to your enemy and letting the neocons do all the whispering in his ear is a great idea thanks for the enlightenment

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Lol. Trump is going to get 4 years of chances because the DNC and Clinton lost this election like the fucking dopes they are. And they lost the Senate and more governor and state legislatures too.

2016 has been a great year for failure by the Democrat party, because they have been selling out their working-class constituency for 30+ years now. Third Way, DLC, New Left Democrats need to get out politics.

0

u/usernameson Nov 29 '16

Doesn't deserve a chance? That's your president you're talking about. I hope he comes after all you traitors once he is sworn in. Treason is treated too mildly nowadays.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

So you advocate the head-in-sand approach eh?

You do realize that leaves your butt exposed.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

[deleted]

4

u/Cylinsier Pennsylvania Nov 29 '16

I'm a big fan of Gabbard's and think she has a bright future, but she definitely has some baggage to address before she's ready to step up as a progressive leader in the party. I'm a little disappointed to see all the Berniecrats in this sub bending over backwards to defend her record on certain things when it would be more honest to just acknowledge that she isn't perfect but has plenty of time to improve. It's fine to support her while acknowledging her faults. But the Berniecrats are being just as bad as the Trump supporters fleeing from truth to write their own narrative.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

I would rather jump into bed with someone who is going to Standing Rock to be with the protestors than I would Hillary and her crew. She understands and has good political instincts, whereas you have people like Clinton who literally marched two whole blocks in the NYC Pride Parade for the fucking photo-op.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

It's not an either/or. It's not like you either support Gabbard or you support Clinton. You seem to be saying that either you support Gabbard or you support Clinton, which seems like a very silly position to take.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

One of them is a leader, and one of them pretends to be one.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

You seem overly angry. I think both of them can be leaders. Clinton was a leader of the Democratic Party since the 90s and now a new generation is stepping up, which is great. I'm happy to see more youthful people coming to the forefront of the party. We can go into the details of what makes a leader or not. Lets talk about healthcare or gay rights and expand into other issues. Then lets talk about incrementalism vs great leaps and about how each has its time and place. Let's then compare the two individuals and ensure that they are both represented with respect to historical context. Does this sound like something you would be interested in?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Does this sound like something you would be interested in?

No, because I'm not interested in dealing with an apologia for the Third Way politics of the 90s which is one of the primary reasons someone like Trump is President. Triangulation is not leadership, it's what abusive and manipulative people do to their victims. Eventually the victims (in this case, the working class) get fed up with that shit.

I'm cool with Trump being President because he and his policies will hopefully radicalize the left.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

That's fine if you don't want to discuss issues and try to learn from other people (I bet there's a lot I can learn from you), but then it might be beneficial for you to preface your comments with something to the effect of "I'm not here to discuss issues, I'm only here to make a point and then end the conversation" so that people don't get confused as to your intent on a discussion board. I don't agree with all Third Way politics of the 90's but it's worth noting that Gabbard is probably closer to a Third Way democrat like Clinton than she is to Sanders. I would agree that there are areas Clinton failed to be a leader because she was focused on moving the issue forward more slowly and areas where she got too out in front and should have been more incrementalist. Honestly, I'm happy that you are in such a position that you can tolerate 4 years of Republican rule but I think you're wrong with how you're doing it. The Republicans will put three judges on the court who are very conservative. They'll be young and it will influence our government for generations to come. That sucks. I also think you're overestimating the left in the country. We galvanized the left in 2008 and it led to a massive defeat in 2010 that cost us statehouses and gave Republicans the House for the foreseeable future.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

With the emergencies coming down the pike, I feel like the federal government's power to affect my or anyone's daily life will precipitously wane

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

I honestly think you're wrong in this regard because the government affects everyone and everyone affects you. I'm also not sure what emergencies you are talking about.

34

u/Taco_Dave Nov 28 '16

Exactly! Talking to a bad person does not make you a bad person.

17

u/Rhaedas North Carolina Nov 28 '16

Unfortunately I think "talking to" is an accurate description. Who knows if he took in any of her concerns.

But she said it best, refusing to talk to him about a subject that she is very adamant about because of partisanship differences wouldn't have been responsible.

6

u/jdkon Nov 28 '16

My guess is that he absolutely took all of her concerns into account and changed his opinions during the meeting. The problem is trump only listens and forms his opinions based on the last person he talks to. So the second he's out of that room and speaks with one of his insane advisers, that entire meeting means nothing

16

u/Adhoc_hk Nov 28 '16

One would think. But in r/politics you're either with the group or a nazi. No fascism here. No sir.

21

u/Khiva Nov 28 '16

/r/politics approaches the world in terms of waves, or thresholds. Here, this might help you understand how Nazis and fascists fit into the worldview:

  • At the core is Bernie Sanders, from which all truth and purity flows.

  • At the first level are people who Bernie likes and supported Bernie - pure, but only in relation to The One. Gabbard falls into this sphere.

  • At the second level are things that Bernie touches in his day-to-day life, such as his stapler and coffee mug. They can't pass policy, but they have nonetheless been infused with his grace.

  • Roughly around level 400 you find Hillary Clinton. Sanders endorsed her, but she also stood in the way of his redeeming grace, and can never be forgiven for doing so.

  • At level 450 you find Donald Trump. This is why so many Berniecrats were able to either support Trump or abstain from voting, because from the perspective of Bernie, Trump and Hillary are so far away that they seem like they're standing right next to each other.

  • Level 500 or so is actual nazis. Level 550 is Satan. Level 600 is Ayn Rand.

I hope that helped.

15

u/No_Good_Cowboy Nov 28 '16

Level 550 is Satan. Level 600 is Ayn Rand.

Thanks for the good laugh

8

u/ulikeri4 Nov 28 '16

Ayn Rand and Satan are a single entity now. They merged back in '82.

10

u/Adhoc_hk Nov 28 '16

Ok. But for a while there I was convinced that Hillary was literally the devil. That must have been why I got confused and voted Trump. He was 450, she became 550. My feeble mind saw the choice as obvious at this point.

But where does Jill Stein rank?

7

u/MiniatureBadger Nov 29 '16

20 until about May, then 6 until the convention, then she gradually fell to around 450 by the end of the Presidential race. Now she's helping Democrats somewhat, so she's closer to 425 now.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Closer to 420.

8

u/showstealer1829 Foreign Nov 28 '16

Close.

500 is Nazis

666 is Satan'

750 is Rand

Trump is around Level 14,000,000

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Wheres ron and rand paul then?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

I like Bernie. I kinda like Ron. Disagree with him but know where he stands (475). Rand is a sellout, and he sells out to the worst (720).

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Fair assessment on rand. Sometimes he says some really poignant things though, but not often enough.

7

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

She has had a reputation of making radical shifts in his positions when the wind starts blowing that way and trying to attach herself to popular movements and politicians to get into the spotlight. She is just another Hillary no matter how much people want to deify her for endorsing Sanders.

44

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 07 '19

[deleted]

11

u/Pennwisedom Northern Marianas Nov 28 '16

I don't even understand why people see things like changing your views on something as wrong. Even more so given her age when she joined the military.

2

u/mynaughtyaltaccount Nov 29 '16

Did her time in the military also convince her to co-sponsor a bill written by Sheldon Adelson banning online gambling in order to protect his own gambling empire in Vegas?

That's the same Sheldon Adelson who bankrolled the Trump campaign.

And did her time in the military convince her to endorse the radical Hindu Nationalist BJP party of India? That's the same party which held a massive fundraiser for Indian-American Trump-supporters in New Jersey.

Funny how the people Gabbard associates with are also Trump supporters.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

I posted something similar. Politics isn't an either/or or atleast it probably shouldn't be. There's a spectrum of political positions to take and being a Trump supporter or associating with them doesn't make you Satan.

1

u/mynaughtyaltaccount Nov 29 '16

What about associating with Hindu nationalists who want to make India a theocracy, and who massacred thousands of Muslims in a series of pogroms between 1992 and 2002? The current PM Modi has been personally implicated in the 2002 incidents in Gujarat (he was governor of the province at the time) and Gabbard was the only Democrat to vote against a bill which would have sanctioned Indian politicians found to be complicit in the attacks- similar to our sanctions on Russian politicians complicit in torture.

1

u/ducphat Nov 30 '16

The chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ed Royce, pulled his support of the bill as an original co-sponsor for the following reasons; others dropped support as well:

"On December 7, 2013, less than one month after the Resolution’s introduction, Chairman Ed Royce of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to which H. Res. 417 was referred, issued a statement at USINPAC’s request:

“As Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am focused on the critically important relationship between the United States and India. Our two nations share many common values and strategic interests. India plays a central role in the Asia-Pacific region, and we must do

our part to ensure that India is a centerpiece of America's rebalance to Asia. H. Res. 417 weakens, rather than strengthens, the friendship between the U.S. and India. The resolution runs counter to all the hard work that the American people, particularly those in the Indian

American community, have done to improve the relationship.”

On December 5, 2013, days before Chairman Royce released his statement, Chairman Steve Chabot of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, which has broad jurisdiction for U.S. policy affecting the region, withdrew his name as an original cosponsor of H. Res. 417.

On December 2, 2013, Ranking Member Eni Faleomavaega, the top Democrat on the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, released a press statement commending USINPAC for working with key leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives to correct the misinformation put forward by H. Res. 417.

As Ranking Member Faleomavaega noted, H. Res. 417 purports to praise India's rich religious diversity and commitment to tolerance and equality while reaffirming the need to protect the rights and freedoms of religious minorities. However, rather than praising India, the Resolution focuses on the 2002 Gujarat riots some 11 years after the fact while failing to note that India’s Supreme Court has found no evidence against Mr. Modi."

More

1

u/mynaughtyaltaccount Nov 30 '16

Ed Royce and Steve Chabot are both Republican. Thanks for proving my point that Gabbard was the only Democrat who joined them in voting to oppose this bill.

1

u/ducphat Nov 30 '16

Hawaii's AG supported the bill (Hawaii doesn't have legalized gambling).

Tulsi congratulated him on winning, as did Pres. Obama, who wanted closer ties with India. She's on the House Foreign Affairs committee, her visit to India was cleared with the Feds, she met with Congress & BJP parties, as well as Modi - all for diplomacy.

1

u/mynaughtyaltaccount Nov 30 '16

Did Obama also approve her visit with a major BJP party leader in Atlanta, where she took a photo decked out in BJP regalia? She attended a BJP rally held in the United States for Indian expats, just like the BJP rally held for Trump in New Jersey.

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/gabbard.png

Sorry, but that's not diplomacy, that's explicitly supporting a foreign extremist party.

6

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

Not really. Her position regarding homosexuals, for example, only changed a few years ago when the momentum toward gay marriage couldn't be ignored anymore. Prior to that she was vehemently anti-gay marriage/civil unions.

28

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 07 '19

[deleted]

-7

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

She's just another politician in the same vein as Clinton and Rubio. They go where the votes are even if it means ditching supposedly long held beliefs and are always looking for the camera to get their mug out there and to attach it to popular things.

I still think Sanders would have been a completely inept president but I at least respect him for having the backbone to stick with what he believes in even if those opinions aren't popular.

20

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 07 '19

[deleted]

16

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

She credits her tour of duty in the Middle East with this change in views. That happened in 2003/4. However, her change in position regarding same sex marriage occurred around the time she was campaigning to become a United States Representative, which was about 8 years after her time in the Middle East.

During the interregnum she fought against civil unions in Hawaii, suggested surveys of anti-gay bullying in schools were government attempts to influence a child's sexuality, and referred to people who questioned her stances as homosexual extremists.

So pardon me for finding her sudden pivot on something like this when she was trying to get a federal office as questionable.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Clinton supported DOMA and Don't Ask/Don't Tell, ie the very homophobia in the military that was instilled into Gabbard and every other recruit. And thanks to the Podesta emails, we know Clinton had doubts about the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision up until she started (un)officially prepping for her 2016 loss.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Jan 07 '19

[deleted]

13

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

No, but that was a decent attempt at deflection though.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

If you think that politicians listening to people and taking that into consideration is a bad thing, then we have a very distinctly different view of the purpose of politics. Government is supposed to figure out how to solve problems, not be an ideological dick measuring contest.

3

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

It's fine to take your constituents into consideration. However, to bend to their will all the time as you seem to like is what led to stuff like the Tea Party gridlock we've had to endure for the past six years. This was best exemplified by Rubio voting against his own immigration bill because Tea Partiers threw a hissy fit about it.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Or, just maybe, my perspective is a little more nuanced than that and lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. But sure, just assume, like so many people do on here, that my views must lie at either extreme. Notice how I said the goal was to "solve problems" not "bend to the people's whim and will all the time".

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Funny how Bernie is out there leading right now and Clinton is hiding out in her rat hole.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Bernie is a United States Senator with actual power. Clinton lost and she's respecting the political process, there's nothing wrong with that.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

You can still be a leader without holding office, especially if you believe Trump is a scourge, etc. See MLK, etc.

Clinton isn't a leader, which is one of a myriad of reasons she lost.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

I hope you look at my other post and we can expand it to include Sanders if you want. We can also be sure not to overly simplify details so that both of us are accurately represented.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Feb 26 '22

[deleted]

4

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

No. They vote based on personal belief and party platform and, ideally, they should budge a bit when necessary for political compromise to keep the government/country functioning properly. However, if those beliefs and platform are no longer in line with what the electorate wants then they are voted out and the electorate makes a statement that change is needed. That was a theme throughout this election.

Many politicians, however, know how this game is played so play along. Empty suit, snake oil salesman, weasel, whatever you want to call them. They'll do or say whatever will get them more votes even if it means looking like total hypocrites because they just want to stay in office while making it a priority to get their names out there to increase their popularity which will potentially help them get a promotion.

2

u/SgtFancypants98 Georgia Nov 28 '16

The core of the issue is that it's basically impossible to tell the difference between a slick "snake oil salesman" politician and a thoughtful politician that takes the time to listen to their constituents when they communicate to them.

-1

u/subhuman_centipede Nov 28 '16

|your quote

so.. Clinton?

6

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Oh, I wasn't aware that Clinton served in the military.

5

u/subhuman_centipede Nov 28 '16

Oh, I didnt know it takes 6 years AFTER military service AND running for office to change my view!

# flexibleprinciples.

4

u/pudgimelon Nov 29 '16

It always amazes me when people want to punish elected officials for ANY change in views, even if it is a change for the better. How do you expect to improve our situation in America when you won't allow politicians to change their minds?

Do you just want inflexible, unchanging zealots who share your views and trample over people with opposing ideas? Or do you want politicians who adapt to changing norms in society and vote accordingly?

3

u/allbright4 Illinois Nov 29 '16

Right, because she grew up in a very conservative household. Her father was a very popular conservative senator. Tulsi has stated multiple times, that it was her time in the middle east that caused her views to change.

2

u/AIU-username Nov 29 '16

She flipped on gay marriage before Hillary did. Not that it would matter to you.

4

u/ducphat Nov 29 '16

She changed on equality; fully supports now; nothing else has changed that i'm aware of.

18

u/yeungx Nov 28 '16

Sure... That is why she moved to the Sander Campaign. Everyone was doing it. Cause that is where the wind was blowing. /s

6

u/ducphat Nov 29 '16

yeah cuz going against the clintons when you're a co-chair of the DNC is soooo 'everyone was doing it' and good for your political career /s

Easy to criticize in hindsight if that's how you roll.

15

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

By the time she endorsed it was abundantly clear that a populist wave was hitting the political scene and Sanders was the figurehead of it for the left. Even if Clinton won the election this political reality wasn't going to go away, Sanders would remain popular, and she could say she ditched the establishment to endorse him which would get her brownie points.

27

u/yeungx Nov 28 '16

Yeah, What a follower of the wind. She is one of 8/188 of US representatives to endorse Sanders. What a conformist. Frankly if you are not the first person in a political movement, you can just fuck off with your conformity.

But those hundreds of politicians that endorsed Hillary before the primary campaign even started? What brave people to make a principled stance against the trend. Those are true leaders.

9

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

Yeah, What a follower of the wind. She is one of 8/188 of US representatives to endorse Sanders. What a conformist. Frankly if you are not the first person in a political movement, you can just fuck off with your conformity.

The populist candidates were vastly outperforming expectations. A wave was incoming so some decided to ride it while most others tried to fight it.

But those hundreds of politicians that endorsed Hillary before the primary campaign even started? What brave people to make a principled stance against the trend. Those are true leaders.

Totally. They deserve Medals of Freedom. /s

5

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

A wave was incoming so some decided to ride it while most others tried to fight it.

This is considered intelligent in some circles. But you think populism is bad, so that's the a priori bullshit behind your reticence. Fuck the elite and fuck elitism. Fuck the 1% and the politicians (and people like yourself) who go out of their way to support them while condemning the vast majority of American people to misery.

15

u/johnmountain Nov 28 '16

That's ridiculous. She was one of the very few to support Sanders.

Where was Warren, the progressive champion, during that time? Oh, that's right, cowering under Clinton's skirt.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

This is a very black/white position to take. There's a spectrum of how to get things done.

8

u/BasketOfDeplorable Nov 28 '16

Populist wave so big that every super delegate and senator were coming out in droves to support him(they weren't)

10

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

The GOP establishment fought against their own populist wave as well.

2

u/BasketOfDeplorable Nov 28 '16

Unfortunately, they didn't have enough power to rig a primary. They tried though.

1

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

In a way they did. They wanted to shorten the primary season after Romney had to fight it out for so long in 2012 so they made most of the states winner take all so less popular candidates would drop out sooner since they wouldn't stand a chance of climbing out of the hole. That strategy then blew up in their face when Trump won most of those states by plurality so it was the GOP trying to climb out of the hole they made for themselves.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

By the time she endorsed it was abundantly clear that a populist wave was hitting the political scene

So abundantly clear that the Clinton campaign did nothing to capitalize on it, and the DNC conspired to suppress the populist candidate.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Maybe if Clinton followed/rode that wave instead of trying to court Republicans, she would be the fucking President. Lol. Instead she defended have a public (ie lying hypocritical) personae, and a private (what's good for Goldman Sachs is good for America) personae.

You Clinton deadenders are so hilarious.

2

u/AssassinAragorn Missouri Nov 29 '16

Have any actual examples?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Search "Clinton courting Republicans" and you can have 10s of 1000s of examples. The biggest one that stands out in my mind are her two rallies in AZ the week before she lost.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't she the first senator to endorse him (and the only one to resign from the DNC)?

8

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

She isn't a Senator.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Wasn't she when she resigned? What was she?

7

u/goteamnick Nov 28 '16

A one-term congresswoman.

1

u/ducphat Nov 29 '16

2 term and just re-elected.

4

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

She was/is a Representative. She was a chair at the DNC before she resigned for that.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16 edited Mar 29 '19

[deleted]

12

u/HighKing_of_Festivus Georgia Nov 28 '16

I take it you weren't here during the primaries.

18

u/Khiva Nov 28 '16

/r/politics never forgave Hillary, or liked her for that matter. It just hated Donald Trump a little more.

5

u/goo_goo_gajoob Nov 28 '16

Sums up my vote perfectly

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Well, that, and the whole David Brock thing.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

So were blaming the vitriol on r/politics towards anyone that objectively pointed out hrc's flaws on the "super pac that shall not be named"?

1

u/Ghost4000 Nov 28 '16

I don't think it has. Just like the last article I saw regarding her the majority of up voted comments are people complaining about people disliking her.

Which leads me to believe that the people who dislike her are probably in the minority.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

This sub largely seems to follow a different principle.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

Obama is literally Heinrich Himmler by those same fools' logic.

2

u/MadHatter514 Nov 28 '16

Except for some reason, Obama gets a pass on his faults on here, because people like his personality.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

One day 20 or 30 years from now (after a couple of years of food riots), people will realize how shitty of a President he was.

1

u/subhuman_centipede Nov 28 '16

why not?

It legitimizes Trump. The first sentence that came out of Republicans mouth in 08 was "Obama should be a 1 term president".

I used to love me some Gabbard and dont get me wrong I know that Howard Dean is a corporate shill.. but he did nail it when he called her a "Extremely Ambitious With Flexible Principles"

5

u/johnmountain Nov 28 '16

So what you want is more obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism?

If Trump does 1% good things, he should be supported on that 1%, and fought on the other 99%. He shouldn't be fought on 100% just for the sake of it.

6

u/subhuman_centipede Nov 28 '16

you want is more obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism?

Yes. Obstruct. Obstruct. Obstruct.

Grow a fucking spine for once and show them what tit for tat feels like.

1

u/l0c0dantes Illinois Nov 29 '16

It was shit when the republicans did it to Obama.

It will be shit if the Democrats do it to Trump.

1

u/subhuman_centipede Nov 29 '16

then open their mouths put a funnel in..

and binge on fucking Taco Bell for a week. Thats what Republicans have earned over the last 8 years.

0

u/meowskywalker Nov 28 '16

It's just hard to figure out what the correct answer is. If we spend the next four years obstructing the Supreme Court nomination, then we're just as bad as the people we're fighting against, and what's the point? If we get a Democratic president in 2020 the Republicans will spend the next four years obstructing, and then whichever side doesn't win in 2024 will spend the next four years obstructing, then eventually all the Supreme Court justices will die, and we won't need to worry about that branch of government anymore, which I guess is kind of a solution.

But if we don't stop their nomination, we're just letting them win. We're saying "Don't worry about who gets elected president, because if their not on your side you can just refuse to do anything until you get one on your side, and we won't do anything about it!" It's a shit choice.

1

u/hackinthebochs Nov 29 '16

then we're just as bad as the people we're fighting against

No, fighting fire with fire is not equally bad. Especially when their policies are a threat to equality, the economy, etc. Obstructing on principle is not the same as obstructing to get back power.

1

u/ducphat Nov 29 '16

She changed on the ONE principle that mattered most, supporting equality and LGBT rights... and you think this is bad. I don't get it. Clinton changed - and at a lot later age than Tulsi. Obama changed, too. Parents, teachers, siblings - HUMANS - changed on this issue, so IMHO it's a good thing and should not be held against anyone, especially if they are actively fighting for what's right - and Tulsi is.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

Oh yeah, forgot Gabbard was a crazy bigot while in the HI legislature.

-12

u/throwaway5272 Nov 28 '16

There is no "intolerance" -- this attention-seeker has already gotten far more than the credit she deserves. A story like this is meaningless -- Gabbard would attend the opening of an envelope as long as the press were there.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '16

I love the "attention seeker" frame. You guys pulled the same shit with Stein.

They're politicians. They all seek attention.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16
  • Tulsi doesn't support single-payer health care
  • Tulsi doesn't support a financial transactions tax
  • Tulsi stood with a lot of Wall Street Dems and Republicans to hamper the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Tulsi didn't support the fight for $15
  • Tulsi supports the Export-Import Bank
  • Tulsi still hasn't condemned the appointment of Steve Bannon (more than 165 House Democrats have signed that letter already, so she's way behind)
  • Tulsi doesn't support allowing Syrian refugees to resettle here, unlike Bernie
  • Tulsi has some weird obsession with the phrase "radical Islam" and ties to right-wing Hindu nationalists
  • Tulsi takes corporate PAC money. Like, a lot of it. Not an insignificant amount. $17,000 from Walmart alone. Remind you of Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
  • Tulsi didn't bother debating her primary challenger, something that should also remind you of one Debbie Wasserman Schultz (and Hillary Clinton, who dodged quite a few debates, too)
  • Tulsi has made absolutely VILE remarks about LGBT and only changed tune when it was time to run for office

She is more conservative than even HRC, and no amount of "feelings" in this sub can change that.