Page 182 of 209 FirstFirst ... 82132172180181182183184192 ... LastLast
Results 1,811 to 1,820 of 2087

Thread: Democrats 2020

  1. Top | #1811
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    15,333
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    31,019
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Beto O'Rourke was tieless in the climate one but not in the other ones.
    He should wear a bolo tie next time.

  2. Top | #1812
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    15,333
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    31,019
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    He is consistent. Look at the legislation he supports.
    Can you link to what you mean? From what I have seen, he is proposing banning certain models of rifles based on their looks, not their power or having a detachable magazine.

    Beto O'Rourke's Bold Statement on Gun Control: 'Hell Yes' He Wants to Take Your AR-15
    Quote Originally Posted by Time
    “We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore,” O’Rourke said.
    He also doesn't have any understanding of firearm physics.
    “If the high-impact, high-velocity round, when it hits your body, shreds everything inside of your body, because it was designed to do that, so you would bleed to death on a battlefield. Not be able to get up and kill one of our soldiers,” O’Rourke said.
    Work done on a bullet is force from the combustion gases integrated over the barrel length. Therefore, any rifle that has the same barrel length and that shoots the same cartridge will have the same muzzle velocity and therefore will do the same damage, no matter what it looks like or even whether it is semi-automatic or not. And there are hunting rifles more powerful than AR-15 or AK-47 types.
    To do anything about high-velocity rounds hitting bodies he'd have to ban all powerful long guns. Good luck with that!

    But that's not all, of course. Rifles, despite their high power and destructive potential, are not the biggest problem when it comes to gun homicides.
    'Instruments of terror': Beto O'Rourke defends mandatory gun buyback plan
    Quote Originally Posted by NBC News
    “And this weak response to a real tragedy in America, 40,000 gun deaths a year, we’ve got to do something about it and I'm proposing we do something about it.”
    But what types of guns are responsible for these deaths? Vast majority is not rifles.

    20 times as many people were killed with firearms than with rifles of any kind. Twice as many people were beaten and kicked to death than were killed by getting shot with a rifle.
    And note that "rifles" of course includes non-assaulty rifles as well.

    If β really wants to do something that saves lives, and not just grandstand on top of the dead bodies in El Paso, he'd talk about handguns, not certain "scary" rifles.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. Top | #1813
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    15,333
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    31,019
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Biden/Corn Pop 2020!
    Sadly not possible. Corn Pop passed away in 2016.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. Top | #1814
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,167
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,556
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    As an aside, why do some white people assume that all terrorists are brown people?
    That is basically how he thinks.
    The context of the statement was about the Middle East, not Kentucky.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    If you would actually read her positions from a neutral source you'd understand that she is against the US invading other countries to prevent terrorism. Neocons are those who want to invade countries to fight terrorists, occupy the countries, then encourage them to adopt western values and eventually fight terrorism on their own. This is what Tuli is against! She wants no occupation. She's the opposite of a neocon! Sure she wants to fight terrorists. She wants to either bring terrorists to justice if possible or kill them. Sounds good to me.
    Silly Harry, those are facts. He doesn't care about those.
    Tulsi doesn't want occupation because it's expensive and it hurts American interests. That's a bad reason to oppose occupation. We live in an era where it's possible to indiscriminately slaughter foreign civilians remotely, without occupation, as collateral damage to "fighting terrorists".

    Her being adored by Steve Bannon and David Duke is a matter of public record at this point.

    “He loves Tulsi Gabbard. Loves her,” the Hill newspaper quoted a Bannon associate as saying after Bannon arranged for Gabbard to meet Trump following the November 2016 election, a meeting that Gabbard later denied was a job interview. “Wants to work with her on everything.”
    And just a few days ago, she and Ted Cruz announced they will attend the "Howdy Modi!" mega diaspora event in Houston to welcome Prime Minister Narendra Modi on September 22. Modi, a Hindu nationalist known as the "butcher of Gujarat".

    [T]he recently re-elected chief minister of India's western state of Gujarat is a hardline Hindu nationalist. For his legions of fans, including many in big business, the corporate media and expat communities, he is a man with a vision – and the best possible future prime minister of the country. To his detractors, he is man who presided over an anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 (a claim Modi denies) and shows a scant regard for democratic principles of inclusivity. His party did not field a single Muslim candidate this year despite them being the largest minority in the state, constituting one-tenth of its population.
    Of course, he is currently making headlines with his not-at-all-neocon occupation and communications lockdown of Kashmir.

    Gabbard cannot credibly claim to be anti-imperialism until she (a) disavows her support for Modi and (b) stops buying into the neocon framing of The War On Terror as a noble effort that has a legitimate purpose.

    On that second point, remember when the Republicans were all shitting themselves over Obama not using the term "radical Islamic terror"? Tulsi joined that chorus. In other words, in her capacity as a mouthpiece for enabling Islamophobia, Tulsi Gabbard is to the right of Obama. Being anti-imperialist requires the recognition that violence against America from majority Muslim countries is only tangentially related to the fact that they are Muslim, and primarily related to our long history of domination and subjugation of the region in the last century.

    She has many laudable positions, but nobody who cares about peace and opposes all forms of state-sanctioned violence against innocent people should support her when Bernie Sanders has all of her good positions without the hawkishness and without being the darling of alt-right nationalists.

  5. Top | #1815
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    5,488
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    10,603
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Tulsi doesn't want occupation because it's expensive and it hurts American interests. That's a bad reason to oppose occupation.
    And here we have it. US foreign policy and US military policy should not be about what is in US interests.

    I think Gabbard has a much better grasp on what is in the US interest than someone like Bolton, with whom she has almost nothing in common. But they both agree that policy should be shaped around what is in the US interests. You think that US policy should be shaped around anything else.

  6. Top | #1816
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,394
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Tulsi doesn't want occupation because it's expensive and it hurts American interests. That's a bad reason to oppose occupation.
    And here we have it. US foreign policy and US military policy should not be about what is in US interests.

    I think Gabbard has a much better grasp on what is in the US interest than someone like Bolton, with whom she has almost nothing in common. But they both agree that policy should be shaped around what is in the US interests. You think that US policy should be shaped around anything else.
    If we no longer have an interest in our nation being the world leader (or even one of several world leaders) then there's nothing wrong with the statement. But if we do (and we should) then it needs a much deeper explanation of what our interests are. And it needs to strongly and unequivocally emphasis humanity's interests. These twitter-size statements are too ambiguous. The worrisome thing about Gabbard is that having served on the front lines of an intervention she might be of the mindset that the US military can do no wrong.

  7. Top | #1817
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    5,488
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    10,603
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Tulsi doesn't want occupation because it's expensive and it hurts American interests. That's a bad reason to oppose occupation.
    And here we have it. US foreign policy and US military policy should not be about what is in US interests.

    I think Gabbard has a much better grasp on what is in the US interest than someone like Bolton, with whom she has almost nothing in common. But they both agree that policy should be shaped around what is in the US interests. You think that US policy should be shaped around anything else.
    If we no longer have an interest in our nation being the world leader (or even one of several world leaders) then there's nothing wrong with the statement. But if we do (and we should) then it needs a much deeper explanation of what our interests are. And it needs to strongly and unequivocally emphasis humanity's interests. These twitter-size statements are too ambiguous. The worrisome thing about Gabbard is that having served on the front lines of an intervention she might be of the mindset that the US military can do no wrong.
    I actually think it is in the interests of the US to not be the world leader, and that our foreign policy should be shaped accordingly. Tulsi does seem to think the US should have a prominent role in the world, just not as an occupier, and that our foreign policy should be shaped accordingly. Bolton and Hillary think (perhaps too strong a word) that the US should directly control other countries though force and threat of force, and that our foreign policy should be shaped accordingly. PyramidHead just admitted that whatever you think is in the best interest of the US, that our foreign policy should not be shaped accordingly.

    The fact that Gabbard has served on the front lines is reflected in her position that the US should not occupy foreign countries.

  8. Top | #1818
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,394
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post

    If we no longer have an interest in our nation being the world leader (or even one of several world leaders) then there's nothing wrong with the statement. But if we do (and we should) then it needs a much deeper explanation of what our interests are. And it needs to strongly and unequivocally emphasis humanity's interests. These twitter-size statements are too ambiguous. The worrisome thing about Gabbard is that having served on the front lines of an intervention she might be of the mindset that the US military can do no wrong.
    I actually think it is in the interests of the US to not be the world leader, and that our foreign policy should be shaped accordingly. Tulsi does seem to think the US should have a prominent role in the world, just not as an occupier, and that our foreign policy should be shaped accordingly. Bolton and Hillary think (perhaps too strong a word) that the US should directly control other countries though force and threat of force, and that our foreign policy should be shaped accordingly. PyramidHead just admitted that whatever you think is in the best interest of the US, that our foreign policy should not be shaped accordingly.

    The fact that Gabbard has served on the front lines is reflected in her position that the US should not occupy foreign countries.
    I agree pretty much with all of that, although I need to look more closely at Gabbard's position. I certainly would agree that occupying other countries has been against American interests with regard to global stability. The sticking point is bound to be that in the past "national interest" has tended to mean "corporate interests".

  9. Top | #1819
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,167
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,556
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Tulsi doesn't want occupation because it's expensive and it hurts American interests. That's a bad reason to oppose occupation.
    And here we have it. US foreign policy and US military policy should not be about what is in US interests.

    I think Gabbard has a much better grasp on what is in the US interest than someone like Bolton, with whom she has almost nothing in common. But they both agree that policy should be shaped around what is in the US interests. You think that US policy should be shaped around anything else.
    Yes, I do. Things like, I don't know, human rights, decency, compassion, autonomy... all of which you and Tulsi seem to think can be overridden if it feeds 'American interests' that always turn out to be oil profits, defense contracts, strategic placement of bases, elimination of popular uprisings, and basically the entire project of American hegemony. There you have it indeed, and now you can fucking eat it.

  10. Top | #1820
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    5,488
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    10,603
    Rep Power
    57
    You do realize that the job of any national government is to take care of the nation of which it is the government?

    You included a lot of nonsense about how I apparently somehow think that US interest is oil profits and defense contracts and hegemony. Your statement makes no sense because I've made it quite clear that the US should pull out of the rest of the world militarily. My position has consistently been that the US should send neither troops nor bombs over there. But even with all the extra nonsense you added, you seem to have forgotten the basic point.

    The job of any national government is to take care of the nation of which it is the government.

Similar Threads

  1. Republicans 2020
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-10-2019, 11:10 AM
  2. 2020: The Hamburger Election
    By ideologyhunter in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-06-2019, 09:07 AM
  3. Oprah Winfrey in 2020???
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 03-02-2018, 03:39 AM
  4. US Presidency 2020
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 05-17-2017, 08:10 PM
  5. Replies: 141
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 09:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •