She has a few good things to say about ending foreign wars but other than that she is cringe personified.

“The DNC and corporate media”? Straight up Republican talking point. How about the fact that your polling is nowhere and has been for the entire race?

I love the clap-back at the bottom of this one

“Not to mention the 2016 primary”

In spirit, or does your state have open primaries are you going to actually vote for Bernie?

I just might, myself, actually... he had an impressive debate performance a couple nights ago I thought. He’s focused, genuine, uncompromising in his principles, and doesn’t easily let himself get pulled into personality conflicts. For him to be doing what he does at his age is an inspiration to everyone.

I don’t expect you’ll vote for him in the general election over Trump, but that’s one sign of how broad a coalition he’s potentially capable of building.

"especially since he had his heart attack"

"oh crap he survived" - the CIA and their heart attack gun

I think we'll end up needing something like the Freedom Dividend eventually, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

Automation has put some people out of work, but unemployment right now is very low (as Trump's supporters love to remind us), which cuts against Yang's thesis a bit. And giving even as little as $1,000 per month to everyone in the country would cost trillions of dollars and have unpredictable effects on the rest of the economy. We would need a lot more technology-driven economic growth to be able to truly afford something like this, I think.

This article crunches the numbers and predicts that even with all the tax increases Yang is proposing, and accounting for some expected economic growth as a result of this, there would still by a $1.5 trillion per year budget shortfall. https://taxfoundation.org/andrew-yang-value-added-tax-universal-basic-income/

Interesting idea whose idea hasn't quite yet come.

A couple things we need to fix right here and now? The extortionate cost of healthcare in this country, and redoubled efforts to fight climate change.

This discussion is showing that smart people on both sides of the aisle recognize something needs to be done about these important issues.

Trump talked a big game about "draining the swamp" and working in a bipartisan way on priorities like infrastructure, which is why I was actually excited about things he said when he ran in '16.

Sadly, Trump has instead chosen to pick a lot of contentious fights over things like an unaffordable and impractical border wall, and otherwise just sits on his ass and tweets. Turns out when Trump said he would "run the country like a business," what he meant was that he wanted to run it like his personal fiefdom, which is what the Trump empire was. But the U.S. government doesn't work like that. You have to be patient and strategic, build coalitions, and achieve buy-ins from multiple parties before stuff gets done. You can't just shout commands from the top and get people to follow.

I think candidates like Sanders and Warren would take the fight right to the entrenched, moneyed interests that are holding our country back. And they have the track record in government to know how to get stuff done using the levers of power. I don't agree with everything they say, but they are certainly the two "change candidates" of the cycle.

More accurate to say "conspiratorial" talking point. There's a bit of horseshoe theory on this -- the far-left and the far-right saying some of the same things.

Important to remember that Bernie Sanders is not technically a Democrat (or, without getting too into the weeds, at least hasn't had a consistent history of being one). These days, Sanders basically is a Democrat from the perspective of any voter, and he's had a bigger influence on the state of the Democratic Party today than almost anyone. But the DNC (who, let's face it, yes they are a bunch of party hacks) may have something to say about the fact he doesn't technically have a (D) behind his name.

The bottom-line is this: Tulsi would have been on that stage, if she had met the same debate criteria that applied to everyone. And that also excluded candidates with higher polling and higher profiles than her, like Yang and Bloomberg.

“Those who traffic in lies” big conspiracy energy

I am thankful for her service but that is about it

“Those who traffic in lies”

she's talking about candidates who have their pockets full of lobbyist money like pete buttigeig and elizabeth warren

She has a big ol’ ego and victimhood complex and thinks she is way smarter than she is

In many ways she is in the wrong party

tulsi has the ego? someone's accusing her of being a foreign agent **without evidence**. if a conservative called me a commie and i defended myself calling myself a fiscal conservative, do i have a big ego in that sense?

she anti-hillary that means she's republican.... even though hillary is a rich person with the military industrial complex backing her

Look, HRC is not my favorite Democrat ever, I didn’t vote for her in either ‘08 or ‘16, and I have big problems with her war record

But you don’t just imbibe and uncritically regurgitate GOP talking points about her and expect to make it that far as a Democrat

Bernie Sanders is a model of how to frame that anti-war critique in a powerful yet respectful way

"But you don’t just imbibe and uncritically regurgitate GOP talking points about her and expect to make it that far as a Democrat"

gop talking points aren't what make someone gop. running as a gop candidate, having actual gop stances, and having lobbyist money are what make someone gop. the democrat media is corrupt and are funded by the MIC, and tulsi, bernie, and yang have to deal with that on a frequent basis.

"Bernie Sanders is a model of how to frame that anti-war critique in a powerful yet respectful way"

as much as i like bernie, i'm glad tulsi is around to have the actual guts to call people (like kamala harris and pete buttigeig) out for their policy fails. bernie didn't call out the dnc for rigging the primaries in 2016, but tulsi did.

She views Hillary as a sort of demonic incarnation which makes her pretty much a Republican

Her Libya and Syria war advocacy is exactly why I don't like her, either. Along with her Iraq War vote, and belligerent statements about Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

HRC is way to the hawkish side of the Democratic Party as it currently exists.

Republicans have gotten better on war issues but worse in other ways.

omg she appeals to republicans she bad now. it's almost as if americans on both sides of the isle.
regarding "cringe", i've never found her cringy. she's the person who actually takes people down in debates instead of going on the ellen show and dabbing with benghazi emails on her back or running a campaign funded by lobbyists and doing dances with the ignorant public.