Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Han Held]

Fair question? I don't know. An interesting and valid point, but Warren wasn't amused. Not a good note to end on.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

If we claim to follow the rule of law, that includes the concept that people are innocent until proven guilty.

That ship has sailed a long time ago; there are people falsely accused by #metoo, who lost everything - social status, job, wealth because their employer just fired them anyway.

 

[Essence Lumin]

That ship has sailed a long time ago; there are people falsely accused by #metoo, who lost everything - social status, job, wealth because their employer just fired them anyway.

So in your book false accusations don't matter since other people are doing it?

 

[Han Held]

So in your book false accusations don't matter since other people are doing it?

That's also kind of a weird angle to come at it -at least from my perspective.

When I type here, like most people I try to anticipate possible arguments people will respond with. When I wrote what I wrote I expected someone to ask "what about RepublicanX and their claims that..." (eg What about Trump and buttery males) -to which I'd reply they should be held to the same standard...but no one honestly expects anything but scuzzy behavior from them to begin with.

I didn't anticipate a #metoo critique...

 

[Cristalle]

IE I think that there's a lot more to Jill Stein being sketchy than "guilt by association", that's a low bar that someone in Clinton's position could easily clear.

If she could clear it in Gabbard's case; she ought to have. If I were Gabbard I'd be reacting the same way.

In Jill Stein's case, she has explained that Putin was only there at the table for a few minutes and that they never had an actual conversation. She was there for a conference and that was the head table, he came to it and sat for a little while. She paid her own way, has the receipts, yadda yadda. The FBI did of course investigate this and it went nowhere.

 

[Han Held]

In Jill Stein's case, she has explained that Putin was only there at the table for a few minutes and that they never had an actual conversation. She was there for a conference and that was the head table, he came to it and sat for a little while. She paid her own way, has the receipts, yadda yadda. The FBI did of course investigate this and it went nowhere.

But yet after the election her twitter completely towed the Putin line on the EU etc, so color me skeptical. Also this.

Watching it happen was a real eye-opener for me, personally. As bad as Clinton was, I'm glad I voted for her and not Stein.

Regardless, however, there's still more to point to in Stein's case than Clinton has pointed out W.R.T. Gabbard; and that's my entire point.

 

[Cristiano]

Here she is towing the no collusion line for Trump and lying about the Mueller Report.

 

[Cristalle]

But yet after the election her twitter completely towed the Putin line on the EU etc, so color me skeptical. Also this.

Watching it happen was a real eye-opener for me, personally. As bad as Clinton was, I'm glad I voted for her and not Stein.

Regardless, however, there's still more to point to in Stein's case than Clinton has pointed out W.R.T. Gabbard; and that's my entire point.

I honestly haven't followed that, I was aware that they had sued for the recount but all the other stuff going on, I was not aware of it. As for "towing the Putin line," what does that really mean? Again, I didn't pay attention to her so I have no idea what she said that would seem nefarious versus something that would make sense.

I am wary of the "if Russia wants it it must be bad" reflex logic. By definition there have to be times where we will have to work with Russia and achieve mutual goals. So a knee-jerk Putin wants this or that therefore we must do the opposite does not sit well with me. We will need to work with them on climate change. Are we not supposed to do that? We will need their involvement in certain conflicts. The only way that works is if we have mutual goals.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Here she is towing the no collusion line for Trump and lying about the Mueller Report.

I'm sorry, but after seeing that video, I can only conclude that Gabbard is a fucking tool.

 

[Cristalle]

Here she is towing the no collusion line for Trump and lying about the Mueller Report.

Can you not step out of your point of view for a minute and see that what she said actually makes sense?

She did not lie about Mueller's findings regarding collusion. It did find no collusion, and what she said is truthful about the finding itself (even if the underlying finding may be questionable and people will argue about that).

Given that there is this finding of no collusion, it would logically follow that it would be a good thing that the president was exonerated. To me, this makes logical sense. There is no reason why we would want any president of any party to have conspired with a foreign power to steal an election. Only from that neutral, general-principle standpoint does that statement make sense. Only when you get into partisan politics would it be a good thing to have such a finding. Her shtick is trying to find unity.

 

[Cristiano]

I'm sorry, but after seeing that video, I can only conclude that Gabbard is a fucking tool.

Don't forget when she recently went on Hannity and whined about the impeachment process, knowing full well what she was saying was a lie. Republicans on the relevant committees had full access to the witnesses and all materials. She is a fucking tool. She can't go away fast enough for me.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Can you not step out of your point of view for a minute and see that what she said actually makes sense?

She did not lie about Mueller's findings regarding collusion. It did find no collusion, and what she said is truthful about the finding itself (even if the underlying finding may be questionable and people will argue about that).

Given that there is this finding of no collusion, it would logically follow that it would be a good thing that the president was exonerated. To me, this makes logical sense. There is no reason why we would want any president of any party to have conspired with a foreign power to steal an election. Only from that neutral, general-principle standpoint does that statement make sense. Only when you get into partisan politics would it be a good thing to have such a finding. Her shtick is trying to find unity.

Except, the president was NOT exonerated. The Mueller investigation did not conclusively prove no collusion existed, and Mueller even stated the only reason he didn't indict Trump was because he was prohibited by the DoJ from doing so!

 

[Cristiano]

Can you not step out of your point of view for a minute and see that what she said actually makes sense?

She did not lie about Mueller's findings regarding collusion. It did find no collusion, and what she said is truthful about the finding itself (even if the underlying finding may be questionable and people will argue about that).

Given that there is this finding of no collusion, it would logically follow that it would be a good thing that the president was exonerated. To me, this makes logical sense. There is no reason why we would want any president of any party to have conspired with a foreign power to steal an election. Only from that neutral, general-principle standpoint does that statement make sense. Only when you get into partisan politics would it be a good thing to have such a finding. Her shtick is trying to find unity.

Can you stop being an apologist for Gabbard long enough to recognize that she is constantly just regurgitating GOP talking points and speaking out of both sides of her mouth? Also, the Mueller Report does not say there was no collusion. Saying that he did not establish that something occurred is not saying that it did not occur.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Essential reading on the Mueller Report: an annotation plus key findings, drawing on investigative reports and Special Counsel court filings.

www.justsecurity.org

One qualification before proceeding to the analysis in Part II: a significant amount of relevant information was unavailable to Mueller due to four factors. First, as the Report states, “several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office,” and “those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Second, President Trump’s interference in the investigation also appears to have stymied the investigation. A key example is Paul Manafort’s failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel because he was apparently led to believe that President Trump would pardon him. Third, some individuals used encrypted communications or deleted their communications. Fourth, some of the individuals who “cooperated” with the investigation (e.g., Steve Bannon) appear to have been deceptive or not fully forthcoming in their dealings with the Special Counsel. Several individuals failed to recall the content of important conversations with Trump or other Campaign associates. The Report states, “Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete.”


Finally, some tips for reading the Mueller Report. It is important to keep in mind that the Report’s analysis is about whether or not to prosecute someone for a crime. Furthermore, statements that the investigation “did not establish” something occurred are not the same as saying there was “no evidence” that it occurred. The Report has clear ways of saying when the investigation found no evidence. It conveys the absence of any evidence when, for example, it states the investigation “did not identify evidence” or “did not uncover evidence” that something occurred. Even then, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When there is “evidence of absence,” the Special Counsel was willing to say the investigation “established” effectively that something did not occur. For example, the Report states that the investigation “established” that interactions between the Russian Ambassador and Campaign officials at certain locations were “brief, public, and non-substantive.” That finding excludes the possibility that something more nefarious occurred in those particular interactions. A keen eye on these kinds of distinctions is important when reading the Report itself.

Also, from here:

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”


Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.


While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”


To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.

 

[Han Held]

As for "towing the Putin line," what does that really mean?

That means that when I was following her on twitter (late 2016, early 2017 after the election) I saw her parroting viewpoints that Putin, via RT, was saying at the same time.

Seeing what she, herself, said was enough to convince me that if she wasn't under their sway she was trying damned hard to get their approval.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Every dodgy, smarmy aspect of Tulsi Gabbard can be explained away, but meanwhile Elizabeth Warren is one step removed from the anti-Christ. What the ever loving fuck? I know there's some really weird, twisted dynamic going on here, I just can't peg it to any rational motivation.

 

[Eunoli]

Every dodgy, smarmy aspect of Tulsi Gabbard can be explained away, but meanwhile Elizabeth Warren is one step removed from the anti-Christ. What the ever loving fuck? I know there's some really weird, twisted dynamic going on here, I just can't peg it to any rational motivation.

I tried to answer this, but I kept ending up pointing out the patterns that seem to mirror conspiracy theory and Russian troll sites, and it just does no good. The best answer is to mainly stick to the other candidate thread and avoid it, for me. I only opened this today because I didn't have enough coffee this morning and accidentally clicked.

 

[Cristalle]

Can you stop being an apologist for Gabbard long enough to recognize that she is constantly just regurgitating GOP talking points and speaking out of both sides of her mouth? Also, the Mueller Report does not say there was no collusion. Saying that he did not establish that something occurred is not saying that it did not occur.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”

Essential reading on the Mueller Report: an annotation plus key findings, drawing on investigative reports and Special Counsel court filings.

www.justsecurity.org

Also, from here:

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

It was mainly over-simplification. Because the report was not explicit about it, it's a mess.

Every dodgy, smarmy aspect of Tulsi Gabbard can be explained away, but meanwhile Elizabeth Warren is one step removed from the anti-Christ. What the ever loving fuck? I know there's some really weird, twisted dynamic going on here, I just can't peg it to any rational motivation.

No, she's not close to that. That's not the way I feel about her.

As for Gabbard, no, I'm not defending everything she's doing. Although I can understand why she would go on Fox since all the other outlets smear her, I don't agree with her going on to Hannity and repeating that talking point, or defending Ellen and George W. Bush or stuff like that. She's trying too hard to seem nonpartisan.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Every dodgy, smarmy aspect of Tulsi Gabbard can be explained away, but meanwhile Elizabeth Warren is one step removed from the anti-Christ. What the ever loving fuck? I know there's some really weird, twisted dynamic going on here, I just can't peg it to any rational motivation.

The Democratic Party feels like the Titanic after hitting the iceberg in 2016, and this 2020 election is a pretense that there is some fair plan to rescue everybody on the ship. It's impossible. This ship doesn't have enough lifeboats and the Democrats have spent decades overselling their fictional first class tickets.

We're all trying to unite under Trump as the biggest threat, but "survival" keeps getting in the way and it's making for some colorful alliances.

Let's just be honest. Gabbard and Warren have the same mission. They are there to destroy opposition to a larger plan.

 

[Cristiano]

Pete Buttigieg joins top tier of candidates in new Iowa poll | CNN Politics

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg joined the leaders of the Democratic race for president in Iowa, up 14 percentage points since August, according to a new Monmouth University poll of likely caucusgoers out Tuesday.

www.cnn.com

 

[Han Held]

Every dodgy, smarmy aspect of Tulsi Gabbard can be explained away, but meanwhile Elizabeth Warren is one step removed from the anti-Christ.

I'm not sure if my posts feed into that impression or not. In case I am, let me put my actual opinion out there.
I don't feel that Warren is the anti-christ, and I would vote for her -cheerfully, if Bernie isn't an option.

That said, there is a very clear and definite shell game being played here.

She's being held up as a radical that she really simply is not ("Billionaires hate her! See why!"), and she's being held up as this by the media and by people such as Bill Gates who know full well that she's far less of a threat to them than they make her out to be.

This is so that people who realize we need radical -even drastic- reform will see that and get suckered into thinking she's something she's not.

This is so people get the impression "she's like Bernie, but practical" or someshit.

I'm certain she's a positive influence, and would make a very good president -but she's no fucking Emma Goldman, regardless of what the billionares claim.

And yes, I am gleeful about pointing that out when I can; not out of malice or even dislike of Warren, but simply because it's bullshit.