>the framing of the questions was just annoyingly so far to
>the right it made me almost turn it off.
>
>that being said:
>
>Tulsi was correct about the foreign policy of other
>candidates, BUT she doesn't stand on solid ground thereabouts
>herself. Beyond "ending imperalism, ending the wars" she's
>wild suspect.

I mean, yeah. She still won't call out Assad, correct?


>
>And I want to add, NOT on some "Russian agent" bullshit that
>the establishment is claiming. She's her own woman with her
>own agendas, and frankly they look more like a Ron Paul wet
>dream than otherwise.
>
>When Kamala called her out, it was about getting REAP for
>being verbally slapped in an earlier debate. People ate it up,
>but all I'll say about Kamala here is... she had a point.
>
>This whole assigning foreign responsibility for Tulsi's
>assholia is ridiculous. Again, she has her own agendas. And
>going on Fox IS a problem when you attack someone like Obama,
>because you KNOW those niggas only attack Obama in bad faith.
>there's no real analysis of his policy decisions. You're
>basically a tool for the Fox News agenda in that scenario. So
>if she's courting libertarians and other right-leaning people
>who might be cool with a more isolationist foreign policy....
>why do it there? Go on Joe Rogan's show or some shit.

I think Tulsi is building her brand. She isn't going to win the nom, and she isn't running for her seat.

I think she has her eye on a fucking Fox show all to herself or a 3rd party run if not this year, then in 4 years.

This is all brand-building. And very transparent too.




>
>Cory Booker had the funniest comment to me, talking about
>Biden "smoking something". I think he should be more popular
>than he is, if your thing is "good liberal guy who doesn't
>want to fuck up capitalism like that". like Julian Castro, his
>record as mayor is spotted, but better optics than Pete (I'll
>get to him later)


Cory must have a terrible team. There is no reason Pete should be doing *that much* better than Booker.

I checked his website and that shit is a mess. Borderline ugly.


I'm not sure who is on his team, but he needs new people.

As you said, if you want a young, more business-friendly basically moderate Dem why Pete over Cory?

Or why didn't the folks who begged Deval Patrick just not step to Cory to offer help?

>
>Biden? A mess. He only survives due to the Obama association
>and the perception that only he can go toe-to-toe with Trump.

At this point, I'm disgusted at how low the bar has been set for Biden in these things. If his dentures stay in and he manages to only forget one or two of his opponents, the heads call it a solid night.

Dude struggled to finish sentences, and forgot Kamala existed.

Fuck getting Deval Patrick or Bloomberg to run. The party should be begging for Biden to drop out for health reasons and endorse a moderate currently in the race, like Cory. If moderate is really the play they want to make.

>
>Butti Dogg? Dogg... this guy is the biggest bust in I don't
>know how long. Like Beto flamed out, but Pete? Got damn. his
>South Bend history is coming back to haunt him. Black folks
>aren't fuckin' with him and it ain't because he's gay. It's
>because to raise his profile, and for his political survival,
>he threw Black folks to the curb. And when you ain't a Black
>Democrat, you can't get away with all of that.

Its almost like he was created in a lab or a computer simulation. White dude + veteran + midwest + attempt at Obama-isms etc.


High hopes? High Hopes??!?

>
>They tried to make him "Gay Obama" and now he looks like John
>Edwards 2.0 with the flippin and the floppin'.
>
>Pete gotta go.

Oh shit, the John Edwards comparison is spot on.

>
>The smart money is on Warren and Sanders. And IMO, Warren is
>more establishment friendly. Her foreign policy ideas (if she
>has any) are a total mess. She carefully positions herself so
>as to have an out with certain crowds. I really don't know why
>the big donors are so afraid of her. You're gonna get better
>out of her than you will Biden or Butti Dogg.

I love Warren, but I think America is just too damn sexist man. She got 30X more heat than Bernie for M4A and its his fucking plan for the most part. She got heat from her rivals, the media, billionaires, everyone.

Then she dipped in the polls.

I'm shook by her struggles lately.

>
>Sanders? His profile has risen IMO. Corporate media is Cuban
>B-ing him. I was lukewarm on him when the campaigns started,
>now I think he stands the best chance of "pulling an Obama"
>(namely, getting people who DON'T vote, to vote). I think this
>is why he's getting the "Cuban B".

Maybe, but I think him getting ignored has probably been more of a benefit at this point.

Warren took arrows that would have had his name on it for over 6 weeks now. No one taking him seriously has been a net advantage for him at this point in my opinion.

I do agree that his campaign, at this point, is the closest to an 08 Obama of the lot which I didn't think I would say even a month ago.

I really don't think he'll win the nom though. I just don't think its possible.

>
>Democrats need more than their base to beat Trump. They also
>need to go at it more structurally. That means, attacking the
>GOP-run states to keep the voting cheats away. Instead of
>trying to court NeverTrumpers, court the working poor and
>other people who generally don't give a fuck. Kill 'em with
>common sense. This is what Sanders (and to a lesser degree
>Warren) is doing. Everyone else on that "let's get the people
>furthest to the right we can" bullshit.


I agree, but even those who do think we should go more moderate are doing it wrong IMO. Biden aint it. Pete isn't going to beat Trump. Deval Patrick held an event last night and literally no one showed up.

Not sure why the "establishment" or whatever just doesn't rally around Kamala or Cory.