Tulsi Gabbard 2020 campaign megathread

[izixs]

Of all the candidates that have any possible shot at actually getting nominated, Gabbard is the one I'd be quite happy to campaign against. Selfish, bigoted, coddler of dictators are basically the worst types of politicians and we already got one of those as president. What more, she needs to be crushed in the primaries so she can't build any sort of following that she'd push towards the Greens come the general because that's the kind of person she is.

No, I will not take this joke seriously other than in how much I oppose her. There are so much better options out there, especially for someone as left as myself.

[izixs]

They've been promoting her for a while. I've posted this screengrab from Facebook a couple of times before, but I think it's worth resurfacing:

Aye. I've got someone friended on there (roomie of a friend) who was driving hard for Stein after Sanders lost last time, constantly sharing/reposting memes from various Green party groups. Now those same sources are doing their best to push Gabbard (and to a lesser extend Sanders) as hard and as obtusely as possible. A lot of them slam Harris (with critique that is usually, but not always, valid) but has also been hard on to slam the entire rest of the field, including Warren. Some of the posts are the usual meme tripe but there's also some head scratchers that seem to imply a lack of understanding of how english speakers communicate.

I do poke back at the more absurd ones on occasion. Especially when they're showing a lack of ignorance on a subject. But... if this one hard left guy is already a propaganda repeater, and he's younger than me, then there are many more out there.

[izixs]

Why does this site hate Sanders so much? Given that most of the posters here are only marginally to the right of Chairman Mao, you'd think he'd be right up your alleys.

Mao was little different from a fascist in execution of government and elimination of control of labor from those the workers that should own it. No dictator can ever hope to achieve the ideals of the left as they require a solid democratic core to finally unite the worker with the benefit of their labor fully.

Or in other words, get better jokes. This one's used up.

As for my general shying away from Sanders this round:
-Kind of tone deaf on important issues (that Clinton was worse with last time so he got a pass on)
-Making the election about him, not us (he generally hasn't been supportive of voices that aren't able to directly help his electoral efforts)
-Questionable history regarding guns
-Coming into this election expecting to be the nominee because he was runner up last time (I have several reasons to dislike this 'my turn!' mentality both in terms of character and ability to run a competent general election campaign)
-He lacked the skills and qualities capable of overcoming the strategy challenged Clinton campaign last time, thus making it doubtful that he'll be able to have a campaign better this time than the one that lost to Trump last time. Aka: why should we trust you to not screw this up?

[izixs]

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, member of Congress and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard launched a lawsuit against Google claiming "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech" because of Google's suspension of the Gabbard campaign's advertising account during the first Democratic presidential debate.

The campaign asks for an immediate court injunction to stop further meddling from Google and payment of financial damages.

"On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit says. "Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her."

You'd think a government official would know free speech only protects citizens from their government & not each other.

So you agree with the Citizens United ruling, that corporations are people?

What does Citizens United have to do with this? The issue at stake here in the Gabbard case is that Google isn't a governmental body & that Gabbard isn't protected by the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment when it comes to what she claims Google has done to her.

The point was that corporations aren't people; they are entities. And this isn't about just free speech, it's about possible election rigging by corporations. Platforms are supposed to be neutral to keep Section 230 protections, but when they manipulate data like this - it endangers the process just like any Russian bots on Facebook would with disinformation.

And here I though Republicans hated regulations because socialism or some other boogieman.

Oh wait... what is Section 230 of the communications decency actually about? From my reading it appears to be about: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

That... doesn't appear to apply to this situation. Like, at all. Because it is all about sharing of information via the platform vs editing it/providing extra material. But when the action taken is just not to share it at all, that is not a form of modification that would make google the publisher or speaker of that information. Silence on a subject does not mean you are speaking weirdly enough.

But... maybe you mean a different section 230 of something else entirely? Please, do be specific if that's the case.

[izixs]

I mean this is the Russian Embassy in South Africa, but still this is highly inappropriate and should raise serious questions. Speaking of which, why is the Russian Embassy in South Africa of all places tweeting about US politics?

Easy, someone forgot to change accounts before hitting send.