Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I hope it goes as well, if that's the right word, as you believe it will.

Not the right word :) I'd prefer "survivable", which I think it is.
I'm also fairly certain this will not bring Europe down in the long run. We endured worse. Like two world wars and the Eurovision song contest.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The reason stated at the time, not what came out later.

OK sure. I don't believe for a second that the Donald himself had any concerns about any of that, but some in his admin might have. I just don't feel like giving him credit for pointing to Ukraine corruption when his motives imho quite clearly were totally different ones.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Take a back seat, absolutely.  But, flushed down the memory hole like it never happened?  Also, if you even dare bring it up you're a Putin apologist.  

I don't know what that means, flushing down the memory hole. It's something I don't want addressed right now. It's a gift to Russian propaganda to talk about Ukraine's fascist or corrupt past, it could weaken Selenski's position and I deem it un-smart to do so as a western politician at this moment in time.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, it was absolutely her stated reason.  Also, wanting him to stay in power can be just as simple as not wanting to introduce more instability into a region that is already extremely volatile.  Look what happened after the second Iraq war.  There is definitely an argument to be made that it would have been better to keep Saddam in power.  

It sure would have been better not to attack Iraq and force regime change in this manner. As for keeping him in power, I guess hardly anyone at that time would come out publicly and endorse Saddam's reign.
I just imagine a Democrat in the late '90s saying that Saddam brings stability to the region or anything of that sorts and hence it's good that he remains as Iraq's dictator. I would have had something to say about that and I'd guess you would have too.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, Putin shoulders all the blame for this aggression, and the annexation of the Crimea before that.  But US policy definitely contributed heavily to creating the situation that allowed Putin to both thrive and take those actions.  I've said it here numerous times, post cold war policy towards Russia was an utter failure.  We had a once in a century chance to turn a former foe into a fast friend without major bloodshed.  Instead we treated them like a vanquished foe barely worthy of consideration.  Even something as simple as renaming NATO so the alliance wasn't connected to an anti-Russia past would have been helpful.

There might be truth to that, but then again, I'm not so sure really. I don't think Putin is a product of western policies towards Russia. And I also don't think Putin would be a different sort of leader if we had accomodated him more - renaming NATO or anything. And me not believing any of these two things inevitably leads me to the conclusion that this invasion, or all the other heineous Putin deeds, probably would have happened anyway.
I mean, in a way we did try to come their way. For one, we bought their oil and gas, even though that is a tricky point to make right now for sure. But most saw it as mutually beneficial, also an economic help for Russia of sorts, sadly just filling oligarch's pockets. We gave them soccer championships and olympic games, made them part of the G-7, but in the end we got fooled. I think we would have gotten fooled anyway, it takes two to turn foes into friends and I don't think Russia ever was there. Us trying might just have been naive.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I like some of her points/positions.  You're never going to find a politician that you agree with completely.  I do find some of her positions and statements objectionable.  But I am impressed with her willingness to have her own opinion, regardless of how unpopular it was/is with the Dems.  We are constantly lamenting people putting the needs of the party over that of the country.  Well, she is a prime example of rejecting that idea.

I see her in a different light, as stated. But as also stated, you like her, fair enough. When I get the notion that you try to declare your affiliation as one that objectively others should reach as well or else they're biased, that's where I feel like listing all the maybe comprehensible reasons one could find to see her in said different light.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, forgive the error, you dirty socialists all look alike to me.   

Throwing everyone in one pot... so typical for all Americans. Ninjasmilie.

(10-20-2022, 12:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The democratic socialists also advocate for seizing the means of production, so while they may not be as radical as the group I erroneously used they still fit the bill for making my point.

When it comes to democratic socialism, something that sure shapes many European countries, I feel it's too broad a brush to say they are for seizing the means of production. Our state sure owns or more often co-owns certain companies, usually in connection to critical infrastructure (energy, refineries, road buliding and the like), but that's not "seizing" them. It's the state owning stakes like a business, sure also regarding the possibility to have a say and keep these companies running under any circumstances if need be, but it's not taking these means of production out of the market's hands. The market rules, or say most market rules, still apply.
And I don't know how radical that really is, the government owning stakes in infrastructure companies, or say if it's so radical that it justifies putting AOC on the same level as MTG.