BRTD's attitude towards Gabbard (and this goes for Democrats in general) represents an abandonment of any possibility for bipartisanship in the foreseeable future. Some people on here probably think that I like Gabbard and Yang because I'm a "right-wing troll," but in all honesty, I think they're the best candidates to heal this country's divides after four years of the most divisive president since the Civil War. The fact that they're trying to create coalitions that include libertarians, former Trump supporters, and other right-wingers shows a genuine desire to reach across the aisle and repair the broken partisanship in this country. I don't want to live in a nation where the president only represents 51% of the populace. The last four presidents have been called "illegitimate" for a number of reasons, and I'm sick of it.
The most obnoxious partisan red avatars will then whine about how "Buh-but the Republicans never compromise!" and mumble something about Mitch McConnell. Boo-hoo. McConnell won't be around forever, and I'd like to think that this country will outlive him. The question is whether that post-obstructionist country will be one of self-destructive partisanship or honest attempts at reaching a consensus. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders are not consensus candidates. They're bare-minimum candidates whose path to victory is winning PA, MI, and WI and not much more. I want the Democrats to nominate someone who addresses the concerns of Trump supporters while still denouncing the divisive nature of this administration. Sorry, but you can't be the party of "stronger together" while simultaneously writing off a third of the electorate as "beyond hope."
Dule was so much less cynical three years back. I can never imagine him making a post like this now.
