Tulsi Gabbard doesn't want to arm terrorists, and Dems hate her for it
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Sen. Rand Paul introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act on Friday.
The bipartisan legislation (H.R.608 and S.532) aims to prohibit any federal agency from using taxpayer dollars to provide weapons, cash, intelligence, or any support to al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups. It would also prohibit the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries that are directly or indirectly supporting terrorists.
Huh. Don't give weapons and financing to blood-thirsty terrorists that want to kill us. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me.
You would think that progressives might get behind Gabbard and her sound moral, common sense platform.
But you would be wrong.
The Curious Islamophobic Politics of Dem Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard
And then there is, of course, TOP
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has turned into a stooge for Syria's dictator. Who will primary her?
BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard May Join Trump Administration
You see, it's OK to be "pragmatic" with your values, but not with Republicans.
So if the Dems are arming al-Qaeda terrorists, and Republicans oppose arming al-Qaeda terrorists, then this is a value you are supposed to sacrifice to be a good Democrat.
Or more to the point, Dems support regime change in Syria, eventhough the only armed opposition are terrorists. Therefore, we must support terrorists because Dems support regime change in Syria.
Not doing so make you racist, islamophobic, a Trump-lover, and an all-around traitor.
Traitor against whom?
There's something disturbing about Tulsi Gabbard.Gabbard has something of a dissident stance within the Democratic party. She resigned from the DNC during the primaries over claims of bias against Bernie Sanders. She very conspicuously met with President-elect Trump a couple weeks ago. She's very critical of President Obama's foreign policy which she calls a "neo-con" foreign policy.
Oh yeah. Traitor to the DNC, which is the worst sort of traitor.
Comments
They threw us under the bus for Hillary.....
The Time for Single Payer Has Come (So Why is Bernie Sanders Still Hawking ObamaCare?)
Now it is their turn to throw us under the bus for Obama.
The least Bernie could do is STFU.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I hate them - does that make us even?
Somehow I don't feel even.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Until we find a new 'party' we'll all feel a sense of anger and
of loss. Something that we thought we were a part of has been hijacked by a bunch of whack jobs and moral bankrupts. There are a bunch of crazies who have made it very plain and clear that if you do not now openly support everything that you once were against, i.e., eternal war and war crimes, revolving-door politics, crony capitalism, and politicians who think they were sent to Washington to rule not represent then they want you to get out. You're not a true 'Democrat' if you don't now become everything you've always thought was wrong. And it doesn't feel right because it isn't right. We're all pissed and upset and rightfully so.
But let me just point out one big plus in your favor, in my favor, in all of our favor. No one here (to my knowledge) would ever stoop to the level of crawling down into the political equivalent of a septic tank and smear themselves with the stench of George W. Bush**. No one here would ever use him as a paragon of decency and human values capable of criticizing anyone else for what they are doing wrong. No one here is that damn amoral or dumb. They are.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
You're even.
If you're a multi-millionaire or a billionaire with gobs of power and influence, you're just about the same as they are.
Coalitions
When I sit around with my Trump-voting co-workers, I'm amazed how often our beliefs intertwine. I think they're sometimes amazed, too.
I hate corruption in politics; they hate corruption in politics.
I hate the rule of corporations; they hate the rule of corporations.
I want the TBTF banks broken up; they want the TBTF banks broken.
I don't want 800 U.S. military bases throughout the world; neither do they.
They know the DNC is crooked; and now-a-days, so do I.
There are other issues on which we are not so in agreement, but it seems surprising how often we do mesh.
It's almost as if a coalition could be formed...
Obviously you are a traitor to the DNC
I'm tellin'.
Banks are not only too big to fail; they're also too big to
prosecute (without damaging the economy). Thus said Eric Holder. And, they're bigger now than they were in 2008. Also the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, the one that left crap mortgage derivatives unregulated, is still on the books, as is repeal of Glass Steagall.
Thanks, Bubba. Thanks, Bush the Lesser. Thanks, Obama.
I'm not at all surprised.
Looks as though you and I have been thinking along similar lines, though.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/248709#comment-248709 (Whether you read the beginning or not, skip the middle and go to the last paragraph.)
I have been saying this
for a long time both here and before that, at the other place. I learned this from talking to self described conservatives during my years with the Peace vigil. It was very surprising how much we found to agree upon once we started talking. The key is communication which involves not just talking but listening.
Obviously, we are not going to agree on a lot of things, but surprisingly, we will agree on many of the big things. This is exactly why both parties use identity politics and social issues to divide us. It is tribalism. And over the years both parties have successfully divided us into smaller and more tribes so that we can continue to argue with each other while the oligarchs bleed us to death. No where will you see tribalism more that at the other place. It thrives on tribalism because it is basically empty of any real values.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Not quite there yet
At least in my life, I still can't break people past the Republican tribalism and encourage them to look for answers outside of Fox News even if we agree on all these other points. It's like all the Democrats and a few bad apple Republicans are the problems but they still think they're the exceptions. Sigh. But crazy enough, my father, who I won't talk politics with anymore, told me he intended to vote for Bernie back when it looked like he had a shot at winning the nomination. For this Rush/Beck/Fox junkie who has always been straight ticket Republican to come out and say that on his own has to be worth something, maybe?
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Your Dad isn't unique
One of the things about this recent election that really blew my mind was being approached by known hard-core right-wingers and being asked questions about Bernie Sanders. This was something I simply did not see coming. The first time it happened, I was so speechless that I couldn't really answer. This was a co-worker whom I knew well, yet I was so shocked that he was genuinely interested in Sanders and his platform that I pretty well locked up. The second time it happened, I'd had a little time to consider what had happened with the first fellow and was at least mentally prepared.
I continued to be asked questions about Sanders by friends and co-workers up until Sanders folded and went to bat for the evil one. As you might imagine, there were no more questions asked after that.
So, your Dad's behavior doesn't surprise me one bit. Considering what I've personally witnessed from right-wingers, the Democrats blew a once-in-a-lifetime chance to split the GOP straight down the middle.
Once in a lifetime, indeed
I'd add, my father has been conditioned through years of Rush Limbaugh to reflexively detest the very idea of the Clintons. Not for anything specific really, as the politicans he supports are just as bad, though he won't admit it. But he was Exibit A for why I knew the Democrat's insistence on forcing Hillary on us was suicidal as the Republicans they were counting on to vote for her would never flip in a million years.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
By sandbagging Sanders and backing Clinton
the D Party made an existential choice. It chose expediency, power, and money over principle, integrity, and honesty. The latter qualities, being so rare in American politics, were attractive to a great many people of both parties. The former, much less so.
2016 was a real fork in the road for the Dems. They chose the wrong path, and now they're finding it nearly impossible to reverse course.
native
@native
But the American people don't want a change in course! (Hint: Those Americans Who Matter certainly don't, and American voters no longer enter the equation at all.)
And this is good - why would anyone want the voters being suckered into voting for evil again, even if their vote may not matter except so far as plausibility of the corporate/billionaire choice 'winning'.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Would that I had steering that could be that reactive.
The entire direction of the party towards someone can be spun in the complete opposite direction in the space of, if not a dime, at least a silver dollar. (Are they paid in Silver Dollars? Inquiring minds want to know!)
Well, for every thing... turn, turn turn...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ga_M5Zdn4]
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Thirty of them,
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
How hard would it be to hack the authors of those articles?
I'd be fascinated to read their emails. Fascinated.
Next WikiLeaks DNC E-mail Release...
You should be able to read the author's e-mails...
The DNC is making enemies faster than the Clinton's can kill them...
The question I wonder about with those articles...
Who "Plagiarized" Who?
I say it was the same "Talking Parrot" that each of authors purchased, and returned to the pet store...
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
Gabbard Introduces Bill to End Federal Marijuana Prohibition
so AG Sessions probably hates her too. I tend to like people that both the Ds and the Rs hate. She takes big money, that's what I don't like. It's also a totally different subject, but everything's connected.
The Humanist Report (video): Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill to End Federal Marijuana Prohibition
Thanks
Me too
She's doing something right if she's pissing everyone off.
'Zactly
Trump too is pissing everybody off. Whether you like him or hate him, he's kicking the shit out of the Establishment of both sides. Gotta love that.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
But he hasn't been that successful. It appears to me that the
establishment has finally got a ring firmly attached to his snout. He'll calm down and become more compliant once he begins to feel the pain when they give a smart tug on the ring to show him he is headed in the wrong direction. He will eventually fit in with the rest of the swine in Washington.
I'm surprised he's been this cavalier. I expect that he's
been brought fully up to speed on impeachment and removal. Perhaps by Ryan and McConnell, or by someone doing their bidding, like the head of RNC, ala Poppy Bush and Nixon.
Has he changed anything for the better?
Say what?
What big money is she taking?
Really had not heard of this. Got links? Would like to know, transparency and all that.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
It's an OpenSecret, wink wink
thanks for asking, sorry I didn't provide the link earlier, I have in other comments. There are rabbit-holes galore. I only went down a couple myself.
Note "Career Fundraising" is 2 years, that trajectory looks like a nicely lined D career to me. Hope I'm wrong.
When I say "Big Money OUT of Politics", I mean all of it. Burn K Street to the ground, figuratively speaking.
Thanks
She's definitely a big supporter of the
war OF terror, I'll give that to her.
That's news to me
Well, whether people want to call her an islamophobe
or not, she does toe the company line on 9/11, that Al Qaeda attacked America. She's a big anti-radical islamist, and there are indications she's anti-muslim in general. So ya, she supports the war of terror, just not the tactics being used in Syria. She's definitely anti-Iran, she's spoken strongly about the Iranian nuke deal and sanctions. I think she's an imperialist along the line of Bernie.
If Tulsi didn't toe the corporate line that it was Al Qaeda
alone who engineered and implemented 9/11 she could kiss any future in the government goodbye. She would be labelled a CT (and not in the sexy bikini way).
Tulsi is a bit of a paranoid war hawk when it comes to Iran developing a nuclear device. She was the only Dem to sign the letter urging more funding for directed energy programs (Star Wars).
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Ltr-to-Trump-missile-de...
If she was that bad
you'd think the Dems would like her.
In her defense she does have a more realistic understanding
of war and would be considerably less prone to start one.
IMO, liberals (as opposed to neoliberals) should eschew the
term "conspiracy theory." http://caucus99percent.com/content/theory-conspiracy-theory-or-healthy-c...
Any theory is plausible and well reasoned, or it isn't. I know of no significant difference between a theory and conspiracy theory, except that one has a pejorative connotation and is almost always used against the left and in support of an establishment position. It's use is intended to automatically and simultaneously discredit and dismiss a theory without all the pesky stuff usually required of someone seeking to discredit another's theory.
The only real difference is that a theory can involve only one person or no persons, while a conspiracy theory has to involve two or more persons. But people are so knee jerk when they want to discredit a theory that I've seen it used even when no one is alleging that more than one person was involved.
From what I have heard
in her interviews her anti-radical-Islamic view is about women's issues as well as terrorism issues. She illustrates her position with descriptions of her experiences as a woman soldier training Middle Eastern soldiers who are unfamiliar with women in uniform or in positions of authority. But in the interview in which I saw her describe this, she was very positive about those men and happy that they came to befriend and respect her. So she was advocating being an example of the positive experience of getting to know a woman in a position of leadership.
I don't know about her views on Iran. I should look them up. But she and Rand Paul are about the only sane voices I hear at this point on Syria. She gives me hope.
I've seen fake news try to paint as her an Islamophobe
Down to an article that include obviously fake quotes. Meanwhile, she's giving speeches at events like Muslims4Peace (https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-pe...) that certainly don't sound like anything an Islamophobe would say.
Tulsi Gabbard certainly has one hell of a lot more positives
than negatives. If there's one thing I can say about her, she is considerably more rational than 90% of the goofs in Washington. I'll even give 20-1 odds she knows how to shop for groceries all by herself. This alone gives her a 50% lead.
Think what the world would be like with Tulsi Gabbard as president of the US and Maria Zakharova as president of Russia.
Edit: Make sure you scroll down to see Zakharova's responses to the media.
As an aside, why not Marine Le Pen for president of France?
https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/841684751417253888
What I think she is describing,
and what Tulsi Gabbard is trying to point out, is that the CIA and our political leadership are supporting Saudi Arabia and the ISIS Al Qaeda forces after having misled the American people into thinking we were going to oppose the ISIS Al Qaeda threat.
The American military is there under an understanding that they are expected to oppose both ISIS and Assad, but they find themselves empowering Al Qaeda. That's how it looks to me. We were nailed again.
Bernie is an imperialist, huh?
That's news to me.
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
Me too.
Apparently, not believing in 9-11 conspiracy theories makes you an imperialist.
What 9/11 conspiracy theories,
George Bush and Dick Cheney's? Or the ones that don't believe George Bush and Dick Cheney?
Maybe you should have done some research.
Research is a little like statistics....
Depends on what you happen to pick and how much you weight it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I totally agree with the title and intent of this essay
Speaking about Generals in government
The author of that hit piece seems to be okay with non-military CIA spooks controlling foreign policy. They may send their mercenaries in to fight their lethal battles but few of these Langley Warriors have seen actual combat. They don't give a damn about life and death as long as it is not their own.
Tulsi is absolutely correct. She knows the military. She knows war. She knows that speaking to adversaries is preferable to killing them. She has seen death on the battlefield and didn't like it.
Trump doesn't know military from depilatory. So what if Tusli has got a nice archest for her future campaigns? What matters are her policies.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Tulsi and Turner for 2020.
What democracy are they protecting again?
First, we're a republic with fairly widespread suffrage, not a democracy. Second, we don't trust election results and it seems as though you get the benefit of the bill of rights until one branch or another of state or federal government chooses to take one or more of your rights way from you. For example, I have no idea what, if anything, the Fourth Amendment means this days. That we're safe from unreasonable searches until some technology is invented?
They may be dong their best to protect us from conquered and occupied by a foreign power. But, if they're protecting our democracy, they should be taking into custody the people who voted for and have been enforcing the Patriot Act, perhaps starting with the faithless FISA judges. Even that isn't our democracy, but our constitutional rights. However, if someone can protect our Constitutional rights, I will be so grateful that I won't quibble about definitions.
No, mebbe YOU should do some research!
I worked the guy's campaign as an unpaid campaign volunteer. He's no imperialist. @Big al
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
We seem to either demonize or idolize the person rather than
simply analyzing the issue. Whether it's our fellow poster or a politician or a religious leader (Pope Frankie Two Sticks comes to mind), we're either in love or brandishing pitchforks. Very little in life is that clear cut.
Love Tulsi
I love Tulsi, we need more like her. From what I've seen she does what she believes is right regardless of the politics. And of course, that's why she's hated. Very few of those people in congress are there to do what's best for the people they are there to serve. They're in it for their own wealth and glory. I do not understand why we give the federal government so much power. They clearly are unfit to wield it.