Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
827
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
1. Reality is in jail because she didn’t use official whistleblower channels and she trusted an outlet that didn’t care about protecting their sources. This isn’t a mystery. It’s just unfortunate.

2. Purging voter rolls, shameless gerrymandering, and general ratfuckery is exactly the sort of thing only Dems are focusing on. While grifters grift.

3. Diminishing massive efforts by a hostile foreign nation down to “Memes and shit on Facebook” and engaging in whataboutism to excuse Putin while orgs like the NRA funnel cash into GOP coffers makes it clear what narratives you’re invested in.
Sal! Good to see you.

Re: #3. Yes, indeed. It's even infected this board to a degree that Russia nor the Republicans and their election crimes are anything to be worried about; some kind of mass hysteria or worse thrown up by Democrats, to mask their own deficits. No, those nasty Democrats (especially the ones that might actually get the nomination) that don't live up to either some fairy tale wishes or are somehow more evil than all combined are the true enemy. Cries of McCarthyism, alt-right talking points, "Why should we be upset about Trump, when Democrats are just as bad, etc... have all been voiced.
 

Salome

Vermicious Knid
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
172
Location
Carmen Sandiego's Pocket
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
Fuck I don't remember
Sal! Good to see you.
*hug*

No, those nasty Democrats (especially the ones that might actually get the nomination) that don't live up to either some fairy tale wishes or are somehow more evil than all combined are the true enemy. Cries of McCarthyism, alt-right talking points, "Why should we be upset about Trump, when Democrats are just as bad, etc... have all been voiced.
Eww.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Jolene Benoir

Spirits Rising

Voice of Reason/Quite Blunt
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
161
Location
Akron, OH
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
08/24/2014
SLU Posts
1476
Ah finally, one of the heavier hitters from the SLU days returns!

Let 'em have it, Sal - though at this point I doubt they'll actually listen to anything but their own minds/narratives.
 

CronoCloud Creeggan

Redheaded
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
194
Location
Central Illinois
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
07-25-2012
SLU Posts
278
Wow. And I thought Clinton derangement syndrome was just a problem with white dudes in the media.
SAL! I was hoping you'd come back to this thread, we needed you.

Imma just leave this here.

Yeah, I figured it was something like that and I'm pretty sure that some of Tulsi's supporters are non-religous "porn and pot" Libertarians and Republicans, which is why so many of them do the "Killary Clinton is a Warmonger" shit.

I no longer make distinctions between complicit cool girls and their white dude buddies. They’re all just lumped under white dudes now. I don’t have time to give them separate bins.
I agree.

Again, important to remember that in this day and age you don't have to be even witting to be "groomed". Alt-right "news" sources and Russian backed hackers are perfectly capable of helping to position candidates that Putin thinks can do the most damage - third party or not. And we know for a fact that they are already doing it. Our own intelligence services keep warning us that they are.
This is very important. It doesn't matter if Tulsi isn't a direct Russian asset, what matters is if her followers have been influenced by Russian internet agents. Then THEY influence the things she says to appeal to them. For example, all that "Killary" and "Hillary is a warmonger" stuff I first saw being posted by people who were obviously not native english speakers on various tech-related forums that appeal to the "tech-libertarian atheist rationalist" types who might be willing to support someone like Tulsi, who isn't really a Democrat at all.

I'm going to say this again, if you say "Hillary the warmonger" I can't take you seriously. Because Hillary was a diplomat, Secretary of State. The Ultimate decisions on military force are made by the Commander In Chief and the Joint Chiefs, they have the final say. If you call Hillary a Warmonger, you're actually saying that Obama was because HE had the final say, not her.

And criticizing Hillary for being in favor of the Libyans getting rid of Muammar Gaddafi? THAT Muammar Gaddafi, who had been a dictatorial asshole since I was a little kid? He'd been dictator of Libya since 1969!

You know, there is audio. If she was talking solely about Republicans, why did she wait and let the New York Times do this when everyone was reporting it as Russia doing it? And the way it's constructed it arguably accuses her of being a Russian asset. When she speaks of Jill Stein, she uses the phrase "also a Russian asset," when doing her cowardly shade, indicating that she thought the first one was.
They're unknowing assets. Meaning the Russians are doing what they can to support them with their internet presence to help increase division and weaken the Democrats. All they need are some social media groups with names like "Mothers for Tulsi" or "Veterans for Tulsi" throwing around "Killary the Warmonger" memes.

There are plenty of Green party people who would never vote Democratic because of the way the Democrats treat them. It's baked into the system, it doesn't make them Russian assets.
They're assets if they've been influenced by Russian efforts on the Internet. And any Green who doesn't have enough good sense to vote for a Democrat in the General election is an idiot. The fact that US is a presently a two party system is something the Greens, Libertarians and whatnot have just got to live with.

Sorry if I'm not going to go along with the new McCarthyism. This is just a sore loser who's blaming everybody but herself.
This isn't McCarthyism, you're not going to have to testify in front of HUAC or blackmailed and forced to sell out your "fellow traveler's" names, or have your livelyhood threatened.

We’re never going to able to move forward by ignoring the Russian and GOP ratfucking of our elections. It’s like ignoring a breach in the hull and saying “let’s just sail through it.”

No one has a chance of beating the GOP until we focus on repairing and securing our election processes. That’s the reality.
I wouldn't say there's no chance, but it's something we have to do.

3. Diminishing massive efforts by a hostile foreign nation down to “Memes and shit on Facebook” and engaging in whataboutism to excuse Putin while orgs like the NRA funnel cash into GOP coffers makes it clear what narratives you’re invested in.
Don't forget the Russian government has been trying to influence the NRA, inviting the NRA to Russia, talking about how Russian has it's own conservative god-fearin gun-luvin groups and having Maria Butina do the shit she did.

The biggest avenue the Russians have to our election processes is through the GOP, but I would not be surprised if there were sympathizers in other places.
It’s the safest possible bet that Putin never puts all his eggs in one basket.
Of course not, which is why the Russians did all those Facebook groups. Heck I spotted a post on social media in a feed from some supposedly American liberal group...somebody had made a mistake and the location was tagged "St. Petersburg, Russia."

Tulsi isn’t really a Dem. She runs as a Dem because you cannot get elected as anything else in Hawaii. The speed with which she ditched her own presser in Iowa to go play footsie with Tucker tells me all I need to know about her priorities.
Yeah, no real Democrat would go on Tucker Carlson to diss another democrat. Tulsi always reminds me of Bill Maher, another guy who tries to say he's a liberal, but then whines about "extreme SJW's." and stuff. He's no democrat, he's a libertarian or Republican who doesn't like religion and likes porn and pot and ogling the legs of Blonde Republican sex kittens he invites on his shows.
 

Salome

Vermicious Knid
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
172
Location
Carmen Sandiego's Pocket
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
Fuck I don't remember
Yeah! Get another "heavy hitter" to enforce groupthink!
When you have to deny reality to maintain your narrative, the problem isn’t that everyone else is engaged in groupthink. The problem is that you’ve attached so much of your identity to a flawed narrative that you’ve lost objectivity.

When you find yourself defending Putin because “everybody does it” you’ve not only lost the plot, you’ve lost the Cliff’s Notes.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
697
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
Yeah, I figured it was something like that and I'm pretty sure that some of Tulsi's supporters are non-religous "porn and pot" Libertarians and Republicans, which is why so many of them do the "Killary Clinton is a Warmonger" shit.
I won't use the "Killary Clinton" insult but I do think that she and the bipartisan consensus of politicians are very heavily tilted toward war. I think it's plainly obvious that the military industrial complex has its hooks deep into our politicians, enabling a generational war with no end in sight, and expanding conflicts to other locations that are not discussed in the media. We still have not had any meaningful discussion about what happened in Niger, and more importantly, what our operations in Africa look like. Most people don't even know that we're bombing like 7 or 8 different countries, and are only marginally aware of what is happening in Afghanistan. Spooks and national security figures regularly appear in the mainstream media to sell us the ongoing war, that nobody asks "how are you going to pay for that?" Skepticism is not welcome, as clearly seen here (and truth hurts, eh). It, quite candidly, makes Democratic opposition to Iraq war look partisan in nature.

This is very important. It doesn't matter if Tulsi isn't a direct Russian asset, what matters is if her followers have been influenced by Russian internet agents. Then THEY influence the things she says to appeal to them. For example, all that "Killary" and "Hillary is a warmonger" stuff I first saw being posted by people who were obviously not native english speakers on various tech-related forums that appeal to the "tech-libertarian atheist rationalist" types who might be willing to support someone like Tulsi, who isn't really a Democrat at all.
I always try to evaluate someone by their policy positions, to answer what their partisan leanings are. I think that one can honestly long for the pre-Gingrich semblance of bipartisan consensus or at least congeniality without being centrist or a DINO/RINO. When you actually look at her policies, what does she stand for? They are not Republican-leaning at all. They are not alt-right, as people like to throw around. She may not be a true blue progressive, but that would be a funny charge from people trying to prop up the likes of Amy Klobuchar or Biden (not you specifically).

It's accurate to say that Tulsi Gabbard is not a complete pacifist. She takes a soldier's look at the war on terror and thinks more strategically about how to conduct it in a way that reduces the exposure of our troops, and our dollars. It's not going to be perfect solution, as there isn't one. But it's also not isolationist, her approach depends on increased diplomacy. This is a rational view to me, and it resonates with people outside the party conclaves.

I'm going to say this again, if you say "Hillary the warmonger" I can't take you seriously. Because Hillary was a diplomat, Secretary of State. The Ultimate decisions on military force are made by the Commander In Chief and the Joint Chiefs, they have the final say. If you call Hillary a Warmonger, you're actually saying that Obama was because HE had the final say, not her.

And criticizing Hillary for being in favor of the Libyans getting rid of Muammar Gaddafi? THAT Muammar Gaddafi, who had been a dictatorial asshole since I was a little kid? He'd been dictator of Libya since 1969!
Like I said, there is a bipartisan consensus toward war and the claim can be credibly made that yes, Obama too is a warmonger since he expanded 2 wars to 7 or 8. And this was the man who campaigned against "dumb wars."

There is a more nuanced discussion to be had about Libya, Iraq and other countries where we intervened. Libya is a failed state where you can buy slaves in open markets. That did not happen prior to our intervention. ISIS did not have a chance to form under Saddam Hussein. Libya, Iraq and Syria are the most egregious examples of how our intervention hasn't actually made anything better: for us, but especially for the people on the ground there. WE caused the largest refugee crisis, over a million people dead, countless more injured. We created power vacuums that were worse than their predecessors all because we are trying to isolate Iran. In the meanwhile, we keep driving people farther into Iran's influence. In Syria, which was a stable secular society before we armed jihadists to take down Assad, once the jihadists took over towns, it was worse for the Christians there as they were being persecuted and women were forced to live in 7th century conditions again. Do you think that those people would agree with you? The return of Assad to power in those areas is a mixed bag, not a cartoonishly simple evil.

Nobody misses Gaddafi because of who he was or what he represented, except his toadies. But Libya's relative stability is something that is missed by the people who are now being sold as slaves. Same for Honduras, where we supported a coup that has resulted in it devolving into a narco-state run over by gangs, contributing to a lot of the refugees coming to our Southern border. Our intervention far more often than not doesn't help anyone, and costs us more blood and treasure.


They're unknowing assets. Meaning the Russians are doing what they can to support them with their internet presence to help increase division and weaken the Democrats. All they need are some social media groups with names like "Mothers for Tulsi" or "Veterans for Tulsi" throwing around "Killary the Warmonger" memes.
Why is it so improbable that people might genuinely support her? There are a lot of independents for whom her message resonates. They are just outside the partisan bubble.


They're assets if they've been influenced by Russian efforts on the Internet. And any Green who doesn't have enough good sense to vote for a Democrat in the General election is an idiot. The fact that US is a presently a two party system is something the Greens, Libertarians and whatnot have just got to live with.
Yes, they do have to put up with it, but that's a choice they are entitled to make - because someone has to fight for change. I think that they should do it more carefully (i.e., not in swing states) but I don't think that we should shit on them for not being content with the status quo.

This isn't McCarthyism, you're not going to have to testify in front of HUAC or blackmailed and forced to sell out your "fellow traveler's" names, or have your livelyhood threatened.
As an old saying goes, "from little seeds acorns grow."

Look, the red-baiting Russia-demonizing talk is not a constructive way to look at the world. The reality is that we need Russian cooperation on some interests (climate change would be the biggest example) and the constant demonization undermines any diplomatic ability to work with them when our interests align. I had agreed with Obama's desire for a "Russian reset" precisely for that reason. It's not being a fan of Putin, but recognizing that Russia is a powerful state actor in and of itself, with whom we would need to work in order to get some things done. Our interests would not always align, but we might need them in the case of, say, brokering deals with North Korea, for example.


Don't forget the Russian government has been trying to influence the NRA, inviting the NRA to Russia, talking about how Russian has it's own conservative god-fearin gun-luvin groups and having Maria Butina do the shit she did.
Yes, they have spies and want to influence our politicians. Yes, they should be rooted out. No arguments there!


Yeah, no real Democrat would go on Tucker Carlson to diss another democrat. Tulsi always reminds me of Bill Maher, another guy who tries to say he's a liberal, but then whines about "extreme SJW's." and stuff. He's no democrat, he's a libertarian or Republican who doesn't like religion and likes porn and pot and ogling the legs of Blonde Republican sex kittens he invites on his shows.
I am no fan of Carlson, but it's understandable why she goes there. They let her speak without loading on attacks. And I don't know the exact number but there are actually a not-insignificant number of Democrats that watch Fox News. I saw some polling where some 43% of Democrats looked at Fox News favorably (I have no idea why). See: Who’s watching? A look at the demographics of cable news channel watchers So, plenty of "real" Democrats do in fact watch, and it's tactically smart of her to take it to that audience.
 

Sid

'Allo!
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,202
Location
NL
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
2009
Sal the thread swinger.
Sounds cool.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
697
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
When you have to deny reality to maintain your narrative, the problem isn’t that everyone else is engaged in groupthink. The problem is that you’ve attached so much of your identity to a flawed narrative that you’ve lost objectivity.

When you find yourself defending Putin because “everybody does it” you’ve not only lost the plot, you’ve lost the Cliff’s Notes.
I'm not denying reality and I'm not defending Putin. I just don't think that what they did on the Internet had the kind of impact that some people like to think it did. We were already deeply polarized, and we can thank Fox News and right wing hate radio for that. Facebook/twitter bot impact is not really measurable and I see it as the equivalent of a lagniappe. Cracking the voting systems of two counties in Florida (the results of which have not been disclosed) is measurable. Paying off the NRA and funneling money there is.
 
  • 1Agree
  • 1LOL
Reactions: Han Held and Salome

Salome

Vermicious Knid
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
172
Location
Carmen Sandiego's Pocket
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
Fuck I don't remember
I'm not denying reality and I'm not defending Putin.
I’m sure you think your whataboutism lends you the illusion that you’re not “defending” him, even when activists in Russia desperately keep trying to explain how normalizing and bothsidesing him hurts their efforts. When you hit the point where Obama is a warmonger and Putin is just a dude we have to work with, you’ve entered a dimension of nonsense where it’s impossible to engage you seriously.

I mean...you’ve been spending pages now unironically championing an anti-LGBTQ bigot who believes in conversion therapy and makes friends with conspiracy grifters and white nationalists while accusing everyone else of “groupthink.” You even insist she’s “resonating” despite her favorables being underwater in the double digits in every poll except the ones that were exposed as being the targets of 4chan fuckery.

Hell, your FOX News “facts” don’t even match the link you provided which is generally something that should make you raise a self-diagnostic eyebrow instead of whining that you’re the lone voice of clarity amid groupthink. But you just keep on diggin’.


I just don't think that what they did on the Internet had the kind of impact that some people like to think it did.
“Some people.” You mean like the intelligence community, Congress, election scholars and defense activists, experts in social media behaviors, psychological marketing, and behavioral studies...you know what, NVM. I’m sure those are all the people Greenwald or whoever has told you are part of the big bad groupthink.
 

Eunoli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
362
I'm not denying reality and I'm not defending Putin. I just don't think that what they did on the Internet had the kind of impact that some people like to think it did. We were already deeply polarized, and we can thank Fox News and right wing hate radio for that. Facebook/twitter bot impact is not really measurable and I see it as the equivalent of a lagniappe. Cracking the voting systems of two counties in Florida (the results of which have not been disclosed) is measurable. Paying off the NRA and funneling money there is.
All the Ways Trump's Campaign was Aided by Facebook Ranked by Importance

  1. Trump supporters’ Facebook activity (Actual Activity)
  2. Trump campaign’s integration with Facebook (Connecting voter files to actual behavior for targetting)
  3. Russian trolls’ Facebook engagement
  4. Russian trolls’ Facebook ads
  5. Cambridge Analytica’s scraped Facebook data
Out of all this, I would argue that #1 was ok-ish except for the lack of response to stop the spread of "fake news" preferable to Trump. By the way, this is all measurable and in some cases led to federal crimes being charged.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,323
Location
NJ near Philly
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
When you hit the point where Obama is a warmonger and Putin is just a dude we have to work with, you’ve entered a dimension of nonsense where it’s impossible to engage you seriously.

As far as Obama being a warmonger, Cristalle is far from the only person to believe that.






 

Salome

Vermicious Knid
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
172
Location
Carmen Sandiego's Pocket
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
Fuck I don't remember
That’s just what they did on Facebook that we know about. It’s not even addressing the DNC hacking/Assange/Greenwald fuckery, the direct hacking of city and state voting data, the years they’ve been harvesting data from every corner while they’re blackmailing and stealing from banks and corporations, etc etc.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,323
Location
NJ near Philly
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
Oh, I know she’s not the only person who believes it. I know exactly where that narrative thrives.
Where would that be? Time magazine, The LA Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Hill and The New York Times apparently.
 
  • 1Winner
Reactions: Han Held

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
697
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
All the Ways Trump's Campaign was Aided by Facebook Ranked by Importance

  1. Trump supporters’ Facebook activity (Actual Activity)
  2. Trump campaign’s integration with Facebook (Connecting voter files to actual behavior for targetting)
  3. Russian trolls’ Facebook engagement
  4. Russian trolls’ Facebook ads
  5. Cambridge Analytica’s scraped Facebook data
Out of all this, I would argue that #1 was ok-ish except for the lack of response to stop the spread of "fake news" preferable to Trump. By the way, this is all measurable and in some cases led to federal crimes being charged.
When I read your link, I see:

WaPo said:
But there’s little evidence that what the firm did with that Facebook data was all that fruitful. Meanwhile, the campaign’s more direct use of Facebook in its efforts has been generally disregarded, given that it doesn’t involve Bond-villain-style antagonists, complete with British accents...
Re: #5

There are certainly other ways in which Cambridge may have affected the Trump campaign. But the use of that Facebook data? There’s no suggestion I’ve seen that it played any role, much less a significant one.
Re: #4

The scale of those ads, though, has been vastly overstated. Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released data showing a number of those ads. Of the 30 ads they released, only seven ran in the last month of the race.

Overall, 10 million people saw ads bought by the Russians — but more than half were seen after the election. About 440,000 Facebook users saw the ads before Election Day. A quarter of the ads, Facebook estimates, were never seen by anyone.

So the ads were seen, certainly, hundreds of thousands of times. But each month in the United States and Canada in the fourth quarter of 2016, 231 million people used Facebook. Meaning that about 0.2 percent of Facebook users would have seen the Russian ads had all of them been seen in October or November of 2016.
The effect of that, it’s safe to say, was small.
Speaks for itself.

Re #3:

“This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content,” he wrote. “Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you’d have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA."
As this section asks, how does this translate to success in inducing someone to stay home? That is not measurable, how many non-voters were there? I sincerely doubt that the people of Flint who were upset that Obama flew there, drank the water, and left with nothing happening for them were tipped over by a Facebook meme.

Re: #2:
Facebook said in September that the Russians spent $100,000 on Facebook ads. The Trump campaign spent about 700 times as much.
$100k is nothing.

Re:#1
We do know, though, that Facebook can help boost voter turnout — thanks to research conducted by Facebook. In 2010, the site ran a test to see whether raising awareness that friends and family had voted would increase a user’s likelihood of voting. It did. About 340,000 more people voted after seeing Facebook’s nudge than would otherwise have. It’s not much of a stretch to assume, then, that enticements and stories shared by friends and family informally might also have had an effect.
I question this. I clicked the "I voted" or whatever, but I was always going to vote. How do they measure that? Note, also, that this paragraph has nothing to do with Russia but Facebook itself.

Google's Sundar Pichai quantified their ads at being about $4700 dollars on its platform. I have previously linked to his testimony before Congress, not going to do that again. Given how small that is, I consider the measurable effects of their Internet operations to be rather marginal.
 
  • 1LOL
Reactions: Salome