Is being connected to violent religious extremists a liability for a Democrat?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Such as for example if a Democratic candidate paid a friendly visit to someone who once controlled a territory backed by violent religious extremists who engaged in pogroms against religious minorities. Do you think that would help or hurt said candidate?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

umm, I guess it depends on what the "connection" is.  If you are merely trying to gain perspective from the other side without emboldening an extremist position then that's fine and probably beneficial to democrats who actually think before they vote.  If you are promoting the actions of war mongers, dictators, murderers, then obviously that is a negative. 

-Hillary's staff acted horrified on Twitter when Trump said something derogatory about some worthless Saudi Prince, while condemning his very right and proper praise of Putin, one of the most moral leaders of any major power recently.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

umm, I guess it depends on what the "connection" is.  If you are merely trying to gain perspective from the other side without emboldening an extremist position then that's fine and probably beneficial to democrats who actually think before they vote.  If you are promoting the actions of war mongers, dictators, murderers, then obviously that is a negative. 

-Hillary's staff acted horrified on Twitter when Trump said something derogatory about some worthless Saudi Prince, while condemning his very right and proper praise of Putin, one of the most moral leaders of any major power recently.

OK I didn't realize you were a schtick until now.

-Are you denying this? Name a more moral leader of a major power in the past few years. Preferably one who has done more to fight Islamic terrorism, restore his country's standing in the world, defend the rights of foreign whistleblowers, and provide a counter to folly.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

umm, I guess it depends on what the "connection" is.  If you are merely trying to gain perspective from the other side without emboldening an extremist position then that's fine and probably beneficial to democrats who actually think before they vote.  If you are promoting the actions of war mongers, dictators, murderers, then obviously that is a negative. 

-Hillary's staff acted horrified on Twitter when Trump said something derogatory about some worthless Saudi Prince, while condemning his very right and proper praise of Putin, one of the most moral leaders of any major power recently.

OK I didn't realize you were a schtick until now.

-Are you denying this? Name a more moral leader of a major power in the past few years. Preferably one who has done more to fight Islamic terrorism, restore his country's standing in the world, defend the rights of foreign whistleblowers, and provide a counter to folly.

I am not convinced that Putin has actually fought ISIS all that much... and that's even as they probably were responsible for that Russian airliner going down.  I also find Russia's human rights policies re: ethnic minorities, gays... to be disdainful. 

re: his country's standing in the world... I don't think of that as a moral issue... everyone wants to advance their own self interests. 

re: foreign whistleblowers... he really only did that because an enemy of his enemy is his friend... it's not like he actually did it out of moral conviction.

-The Syrian Army is a very weak army, so even a YUGE number of Russian airstrikes can't help it win. Currently, it's fighting ISIS on three fronts, assisted on every one by Russian airstrikes. And, yes, Russia has bombed ISIS about as much as the U.S., if not more.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For the record, I'm referring to the fact that Tulsi Gabbard supports this charming bunch:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

umm, I guess it depends on what the "connection" is.  If you are merely trying to gain perspective from the other side without emboldening an extremist position then that's fine and probably beneficial to democrats who actually think before they vote.  If you are promoting the actions of war mongers, dictators, murderers, then obviously that is a negative. 

-Hillary's staff acted horrified on Twitter when Trump said something derogatory about some worthless Saudi Prince, while condemning his very right and proper praise of Putin, one of the most moral leaders of any major power recently.

OK I didn't realize you were a schtick until now.

-Are you denying this? Name a more moral leader of a major power in the past few years. Preferably one who has done more to fight Islamic terrorism, restore his country's standing in the world, defend the rights of foreign whistleblowers, and provide a counter to folly.

I am not convinced that Putin has actually fought ISIS all that much... and that's even as they probably were responsible for that Russian airliner going down.  I also find Russia's human rights policies re: ethnic minorities, gays... to be disdainful. 

re: his country's standing in the world... I don't think of that as a moral issue... everyone wants to advance their own self interests. 

re: foreign whistleblowers... he really only did that because an enemy of his enemy is his friend... it's not like he actually did it out of moral conviction.

-The Syrian Army is a very weak army, so even a YUGE number of Russian airstrikes can't help it win. Currently, it's fighting ISIS on three fronts, assisted on every one by Russian airstrikes. And, yes, Russia has bombed ISIS about as much as the U.S., if not more.

well even if all that is true, it doesn't make me think all that more highly of him on a personal level as I have a libertarian non-interventionist belief system with regard to foreign policy.  Though I suppose Russia has some justification for such strikes as ISIS attacked that Russian flight.  I just don't see how attacking random militants in Syria is necessary for a country like Russia to protect itself.  Those people are not traveling to Russia any time soon.

-Sure they are. You think Chechens aren't training with ISIS?

[Derpist]

Probably, but Keith Ellison is still gonna be DNC chair.

[White Trash]

Watching Eharding and Non Swing Vote duke it out is something I've been wanting to see for a long time.

[Person Man]

Watching Eharding and Non Swing Vote duke it out is something I've been wanting to see for a long time.

This was supposed to be about alt-left politicians but ended up defending the record of an alt-right politician and his paid stooge not understanding the difference between a self-interested leader ans a moral one. The thing about the alt-Right is that they just think that if you are white or white-ish and kill a bunch of people, no matter who they are or why, you are doing the Lord's work.

And about Democrats being supported by violent religious extremists...worked for Republicans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So most Democrats would support the Bharatiya Janata Party if they were involved in Indian politics?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

So most Democrats would support the Bharatiya Janata Party if they were involved in Indian politics?

-Nope. But, again, Keith Ellison's former Nation of Islam support is no liability for his DNC chair bid.

[pikachu]

So most Democrats would support the Bharatiya Janata Party if they were involved in Indian politics?

No, but there's a fairly significant cross-section of people who support the BJP and Democrats among Indian-Americans, and Modi remains very popular among the diaspora in the US, which is simultaneously one of the most Democratic groups in this country.

It's also fair to remember that Democrats have supported plenty of terrible regimes in the past without batting an eye as long as they were US allies. I'm not saying that's it the right thing to do, but no Democratic is going to launch an attack on the governing party of a country which we've been wanting to make our ally for much of the recent past.

[Santander]

umm, I guess it depends on what the "connection" is.  If you are merely trying to gain perspective from the other side without emboldening an extremist position then that's fine and probably beneficial to democrats who actually think before they vote.  If you are promoting the actions of war mongers, dictators, murderers, then obviously that is a negative. 

-Hillary's staff acted horrified on Twitter when Trump said something derogatory about some worthless Saudi Prince, while condemning his very right and proper praise of Putin, one of the most moral leaders of any major power recently.

OK I didn't realize you were a schtick until now.

-Are you denying this? Name a more moral leader of a major power in the past few years. Preferably one who has done more to fight Islamic terrorism, restore his country's standing in the world, defend the rights of foreign whistleblowers, and provide a counter to folly.

It's great to see another admirer of Mr. Putin here.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Any uber religious person running for office nowadays would be a liability.

[Person Man]

If Republicans believe everything they say, a Democrat became and was reelected President with this already.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

If Republicans believe everything they say, a Democrat became and was reelected President with this already.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So most Democrats would support the Bharatiya Janata Party if they were involved in Indian politics?

-Nope. But, again, Keith Ellison's former Nation of Islam support is no liability for his DNC chair bid.

Let's see, you said the key word in the post: FORMER support. Therefore not comparable to Tulsi Gabbard's current Hindutva support.

Also DNC chair is not a remotely comparable office to President and pretending that it is like some do is almost funny.