trump thread

[grue]

ok so here's the thing

1/3 (just going by that article) of american workers live below a living wage

this is disgraceful

in speaking to a crowd while answering questions she said "a vast majority"

this is wrong, hyperbolized through demagogy, unnecessary because 1/3 is already atrocious

then the rhetoric is "is this justified within the current broader context? no, look at how rich these people are who also hire under those values"

the wrapping of her whole argument is "many people make too little, and it's unfair given how much is profited from that"

understanding this is to me far more useful to understand how she might contribute to policy drafting than whether or not she was correct in exaggerating. I think this because I know she isn't drafting that by herself. Now if she presented a bill based on these erroneous assumptions, then I'd say you were completely correct. But there's a distance between what's said and what's done in politics - I understand that you do not like this, but it is how things are done and I don't know if there's a single rep that does it differently. My sympathy towards her is based precisely on that it seems to me she is being far more scrutinized over her politicalness than others who do the exact same thing. And it ends there, if it matters

[Ben]

yeah, i just think we can have the best of both worlds. we dont need to exaggerate and doing so just creates fodder for the "time to own the libtards" folks. and pisses of the people who WILL be the ones to help her write the legislation when the time comes

[fat lesbian]

wild to me that tulsi fucking gabbard denounced the US coup in Venezuela before she did despite being ostensibly a socialist tho

[Delirious Biznasty]

as i typed that post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...5b6ae6f86c

http://archive.is/sbPhx for people who can't click this link

[grue]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-consi...8?mod=e2tw

noteworthy that Trump recently reversed his speech, first talking about amnesty and now talking about humanitarian aid for those fleeing persecution and human traffic

particularly bc now they can use that to their advantage and say they beat Dems to that punch, claim humanitarianism to the right

I wonder how this shift will be received by the voter base

[Ben]

im lovin trumps obsession with the duct tape tbh

[grue]

at first i was like Tulsi is a shady character and now i'm like TULSI2020 OR BUST I'll keep you guys updated on any developments

[fat lesbian]

isn’t she friends with hindu nationalists

[grue]

she has a bad past from religious doctrine (which included strong ant-lgbt actions by her) idk how strong her connections to that still is; it's the one thing that irks me about her

but seeing a presidential candidate actually go against american millitary intervention is blissful like, not staging genocidal coups where governments aren't aligned with the usa?? what madness is this

[fat lesbian]

my question regarding that is the same as it is w every other politician in America: will u hold that position if actually elected to a position of significant power? the answer is usually no. you could see it happen in real time with AOC and her flip flopping in whether or not she supports genocide.

she’s far from the only candidate that opposes sanctions or a military backed enforcement of the coup in Venezuela, btw. really shld turn off my phones autocomplete some time

[grue]

what other candidate is against american support of guaido in venezuela? im unaware

[Ben]

what do you mean by support? i assume you mean the time-honored american tradition of military interventionism in south america, not just supporting guaido as a man. support ranges from "i love democracy" to "i support the man himself" to "sanctions are ok" to "military intervention"

gillibrand: against military, but for sanctions
warren: against military and sanctions
bernie: generally "against intervention"

everyone else either said nothing, just said that maduro was bad and should leave, or said they liked democracy

[grue]

supporting guaidó means recognizing him as rightful president

idk if warren + sanders can be said to actually oppose sanctions (the whole issue is complicated bc if you recognize guaidó then what does that mean exactly), warren specifically had a fence-sitting take like "i oppose reckless sanctions" while gabbard is specifically platforming against usa foreign meddling

it's telling that i cant find much by googling warren or sanders on venezuela but there's plenty very clear results when googling gabbard

but yeah I was wrong and it's not as much of a divide as i originally thought

[grue]

https://www.facebook.com/TulsiGabbard/vi...871052705/

note the "the us has no business (...) in thinking who should lead another country" which to me is saying that the US should have never recognized guaidó as president (saying it outright could have tanked the election but it's still a lil cowardly to just imply it)

[Ben]

i think reporting in general is muddled to begin with because i THINK the majority of americans would support guaido on paper (in that, democracy = good, dictator = bad) and trump already recognized him, so they have to show their support without saying explicitly "im joining with the trump administration to show my support for the man" if they do support it

gabbard is interesting because i think back in the day, we'd say that these politicians are all changing their views in order to get elected but i cant really say that about any of the potential Ds except her. she used to be a lot of things and now isnt and i think that has soured people