Submitted by apenultimate on Fri, 01/11/2019 - 7:43pm
Not sure what else to say. As of right now, even if she runs as a Democrat (not confirmed as of yet--the announcement will come next week), I'll support her.
Why? She called out two of her associates for how they questioned one of Trump's picks for judgeship. I don't know if it was good or bad that she did it though. But the claws for her are out because she met with Assad. You know ... the guy who dropped chemical weapons on his citizens and wasn't punished enough by Trump because he bombed empty buildings and didn't kill anyone. Gawd I wish I was joking about this.
"She must be stopped!!" -- The Democratic Powers That Be
Why? She called out two of her associates for how they questioned one of Trump's picks for judgeship. I don't know if it was good or bad that she did it though. But the claws for her are out because she met with Assad. You know ... the guy who dropped chemical weapons on his citizens and wasn't punished enough by Trump because he bombed empty buildings and didn't kill anyone. Gawd I wish I was joking about this.
about his membership in the Knights of Columbus. If you do some reading about this group you will find that they are not a benign charity group. They are another group that spends millions on lobbying government to stop abortion and deny gay rights. If he belongs to a country club that barred blacks, would it be OK to question him about that? Of course it would. This is the same thing.
For too long in this country we have allowed religion a pass on its underhanded dealings in our government because no one wants to cross the line of "disrespect for religious beliefs". If religion wants to play in the secular arena that is supposed to be our government, then we better damn well hold their feet to the fire of scrutiny and challenge.
#1.1 the potential judge about his association with a Catholic group. It was a ridiculous line of questioning.
What's next? Ban all Catholics from office?
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
As long as you claim to be Christian, walking the walk not required, you're protected from criticism. If you're Jewish, you're accepted by xtians because chosen people but pitied because you killed Jesus -- we just won't talk about it in mixed company. If you're Muslim, you're evil incarnate and need to gtfo because terrorism and sharia law. All the others like Hindu, Buddhist, etc, are tolerated but thought of as weird cult followers, like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.
Stand for the flag and kneel for the cross, after all. Sigh . . .
about his membership in the Knights of Columbus. If you do some reading about this group you will find that they are not a benign charity group. They are another group that spends millions on lobbying government to stop abortion and deny gay rights. If he belongs to a country club that barred blacks, would it be OK to question him about that? Of course it would. This is the same thing.
For too long in this country we have allowed religion a pass on its underhanded dealings in our government because no one wants to cross the line of "disrespect for religious beliefs". If religion wants to play in the secular arena that is supposed to be our government, then we better damn well hold their feet to the fire of scrutiny and challenge.
@edg
Alexandria O-C has I think 80% chance of winning in 2024.
Now that would really cause emotional breakdowns amongst TPTB/Dims.
...
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ROCKS Rachel Maddow The Damage Report 1/9/19
AOC KILLED IT on Rachel Maddow. John Iadarola and Jayar Jackson break down AOC response to Trump's address on The Damage Report. https://t.co/aLL1ofkLkl
#1 Alexandria O-C has I think 80% chance of winning in 2024.
Now that would really cause emotional breakdowns amongst TPTB/Dims.
...
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ROCKS Rachel Maddow The Damage Report 1/9/19
AOC KILLED IT on Rachel Maddow. John Iadarola and Jayar Jackson break down AOC response to Trump's address on The Damage Report. https://t.co/aLL1ofkLkl
An appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show means she must be a threat to the status quo.
#1 Alexandria O-C has I think 80% chance of winning in 2024.
Now that would really cause emotional breakdowns amongst TPTB/Dims.
...
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ROCKS Rachel Maddow The Damage Report 1/9/19
AOC KILLED IT on Rachel Maddow. John Iadarola and Jayar Jackson break down AOC response to Trump's address on The Damage Report. https://t.co/aLL1ofkLkl
a lot of questions about her and objections to her, but anyone who is military and anti-war, someone with enough courage to meet with Assad and question the Obama/Clinton death policy definitely has my interest. Big Al has raised very good reasons to doubt her in our discussions, but things are so bad, so hideous, I'm at least listening to any person who doesn't sound like a war monger bot.
@Linda Wood
If she is really anti war then I am very interested. Need to know where she lands on climate.
a lot of questions about her and objections to her, but anyone who is military and anti-war, someone with enough courage to meet with Assad and question the Obama/Clinton death policy definitely has my interest. Big Al has raised very good reasons to doubt her in our discussions, but things are so bad, so hideous, I'm at least listening to any person who doesn't sound like a war monger bot.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation
She can run for Bernie's 2nd term, Bernie handing her the baton.
But she would rank up there with me, a close second behind Bernie.
up
0 users have voted.
—
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
@Wink
As a critic of US interventionist policy, Tulsi is the perfect compliment to Bernie's strong domestic programs.
Where's Bernie going to get all that funding for his ambitious policies? Right at his side; tell 'em Tulsi. She voted nay twice on the bloated NDAA for 2019. Out of Syria. Out of Afghanistan.
Think of her as the anti-Cheney.
give him a broader appeal across ideological lines. The diehard partisan sheep aren't budging off the Third Way's choice. It is everyone in between that has to be convinced.
Bernie is going to run and has done everything but formally announced. They couldn’t wait to step all over it with the Intercept's second telling of the tale of the same someone got sexually harassed by the other same someone sometime during Bernie’s campaign three years ago. No matter how many candidates run, the party knives will be out more and bigger than ever for Bernie. The centrist neoliberals’ like Kos and his trolls hate, hate, hate him for daring to rock Clinton's boat.
The biggest enemy of my enemy is my best friend.
But she would rank up there with me, a close second behind Bernie.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@gjohnsit
Especially if they run as Green/independent. The Dems are barely competitive head-to-head against the Reps; add a second front to the battle and I truly believe the populists will prevail.
But she would rank up there with me, a close second behind Bernie.
I am so jaded, I have no faith any politician really means what they say.
If she "sounds" better than the rest of the field, I might roll out of bed and vote in a primary.
The days of me sending money, sticking up a sign in my yard, calling people...they are over.
No politician gets anything from me but a tap on a computer screen, if that. That is about the same they seem to give to me.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp
then TPTB have already won.
Anti corporatists need small donors. Dont give up your power for change.
I am so jaded, I have no faith any politician really means what they say.
If she "sounds" better than the rest of the field, I might roll out of bed and vote in a primary.
The days of me sending money, sticking up a sign in my yard, calling people...they are over.
No politician gets anything from me but a tap on a computer screen, if that. That is about the same they seem to give to me.
@on the cusp
I'll just donate if the candidate appears to need some help, and only a few dollars at that.
I never gave money to Obama and Bernie (did for Dean, though). I would have given money to Bernie, but his fundraising was already going very well. But I caucused for him.
I was going to blow off the upcoming caucus, but if it gets interesting, I may just go.
#4.1 The TPTB guys that spoiled my check writing were Obama and Sanders.
Why aren't people talking about this? So not only is DHS running the elections, the DNC still has delegates and superdelegates investigation in the elections. Has anyone from the DNC renounced their saying that they could go in a back room and decide who they want to be their candidate?
This lawsuit against the DNC still hasn't started as far as I know and if it does before the primary starts what then?
Letting the delegates override the will of voters could see a repeat of the last primary where Bernie or some one like him wins, but that's not who they want to run.
Politics as a vehicle for change is what we know. To eschew that would require some serious re-categorization of how to make the world safe from those who are trying to defile it.
Why aren't people talking about this? So not only is DHS running the elections, the DNC still has delegates and superdelegates investigation in the elections. Has anyone from the DNC renounced their saying that they could go in a back room and decide who they want to be their candidate?
This lawsuit against the DNC still hasn't started as far as I know and if it does before the primary starts what then?
Letting the delegates override the will of voters could see a repeat of the last primary where Bernie or some one like him wins, but that's not who they want to run.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Why aren't people talking about this? So not only is DHS running the elections, the DNC still has delegates and superdelegates investigation in the elections. Has anyone from the DNC renounced their saying that they could go in a back room and decide who they want to be their candidate?
This lawsuit against the DNC still hasn't started as far as I know and if it does before the primary starts what then?
Letting the delegates override the will of voters could see a repeat of the last primary where Bernie or some one like him wins, but that's not who they want to run.
And she did resign from the DNC in order to endorse Sanders. She did go to Syria and she did denounce what's going on there (along with a lot of other pointless war). I've been hoping she'd run. Now I need to research where she stands on Russiagate. Bernie is going to have a hard time gaining my support as long as he stands behind that monstrosity (or until he offers up some evidence to support his claims).
I am so jaded, I have no faith any politician really means what they say.
If she "sounds" better than the rest of the field, I might roll out of bed and vote in a primary.
The days of me sending money, sticking up a sign in my yard, calling people...they are over.
No politician gets anything from me but a tap on a computer screen, if that. That is about the same they seem to give to me.
up
0 users have voted.
—
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.
Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.
And she did resign from the DNC in order to endorse Sanders. She did go to Syria and she did denounce what's going on there (along with a lot of other pointless war). I've been hoping she'd run. Now I need to research where she stands on Russiagate. Bernie is going to have a hard time gaining my support as long as he stands behind that monstrosity (or until he offers up some evidence to support his claims).
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@dkmich
that and more. And before people say he punk'ed out and sheepdipped, we'll Never know what happened behind the curtain. Did they show him the missing frames from zapruder? How Did he get that bashed head? Were there threats?
How would any of Us handled it? Think about it, how Much does Each One of Us have that We are Willing to Lose for an Ideal?
For ourselves, maybe not so much.
But to risk family, or friends lives is maybe asking a Little much of anybody.
ymmv
While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.
Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
with a bat is ridiculous. Bernie stuck his neck out when no one else would. For that everyone owes him some loyalty. Tulsi is great. I could live with Warren. Both would make good VPs. If Bernie asks for my support, he comes first. Nothing would make the Kos assholes of the world happier than to have Bernie's base abandon him for a new darling of the left.
Obviously he has to continue to deserve the support, but so far, he's done nothing in my book that precludes it.
#4.2.1 that and more. And before people say he punk'ed out and sheepdipped, we'll Never know what happened behind the curtain. Did they show him the missing frames from zapruder? How Did he get that bashed head? Were there threats?
How would any of Us handled it? Think about it, how Much does Each One of Us have that We are Willing to Lose for an Ideal?
For ourselves, maybe not so much.
But to risk family, or friends lives is maybe asking a Little much of anybody.
ymmv
fuck
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
with a bat is ridiculous. Bernie stuck his neck out when no one else would. For that everyone owes him some loyalty. Tulsi is great. I could live with Warren. Both would make good VPs. If Bernie asks for my support, he comes first. Nothing would make the Kos assholes of the world happier than to have Bernie's base abandon him for a new darling of the left.
Obviously he has to continue to deserve the support, but so far, he's done nothing in my book that precludes it.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@dkmich
he could fundraise enough money from small dollar donors. Dems were all stuck in this notion that a candidate had to have, no ifs ands or buts, wealthy donors lined up.
I think that in itself was a huge accomplishment. Bring the right policies, and a candidate will get the money.
While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.
Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.
And honestly I've been willing to roll with the "Russiagate" lies from Sanders up till now under the theory of political expedience. But that excuse ends if I'm considering him as President. I do not need or want another Obama and he's either going to tell us the truth about wars or he is not. I'm not one of the "Sanders is a sheepdog" crowd. The guy has a long track record of doing [mostly] good. But Russiagate = WW3. As lies go, that's sort of a whopper, no? It demands an explanation.
While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.
Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.
up
0 users have voted.
—
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@SnappleBC@SnappleBC
I could (reluctantly) look past other foreign policy shortcomings, but this is the big one, along with it gives the DNC a pass for 2016. I don’t buy the “he was threatened” theory and I don’t accept he doesn’t know better. Everyone has that line, and pushing Russiagate was mine. It just seems inconsistent with everything else he supposedly stands for.
And honestly I've been willing to roll with the "Russiagate" lies from Sanders up till now under the theory of political expedience. But that excuse ends if I'm considering him as President. I do not need or want another Obama and he's either going to tell us the truth about wars or he is not. I'm not one of the "Sanders is a sheepdog" crowd. The guy has a long track record of doing [mostly] good. But Russiagate = WW3. As lies go, that's sort of a whopper, no? It demands an explanation.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
However, his voting in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem told me he's on the AIPAC dole or at least does Israel's bidding, despite what he says about war. No doubt in my mind he'll vote in favor of cutting our 1st Amendment wings and outlaw BDS. He's an Israeli tool like the rest of them.
Who's to say Israel isn't behind Russiagate? They invented paid troll farms, long before Brock was doing it. Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.
I gave up on Bernie when he lost his spine. Russiagate is just more of his spinelessness. A yes vote on the embassy move told me who he works for, and a vote outlawing BDS will only solidify my conclusion that he, and everyone else who votes the same, are on the Israeli dole.
#4.2.1.3#4.2.1.3 I could (reluctantly) look past other foreign policy shortcomings, but this is the big one, along with it gives the DNC a pass for 2016. I don’t buy the “he was threatened” theory and I don’t accept he doesn’t know better. Everyone has that line, and pushing Russiagate was mine. It just seems inconsistent with everything else he supposedly stands for.
Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.
However, his voting in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem told me he's on the AIPAC dole or at least does Israel's bidding, despite what he says about war. No doubt in my mind he'll vote in favor of cutting our 1st Amendment wings and outlaw BDS. He's an Israeli tool like the rest of them.
Who's to say Israel isn't behind Russiagate? They invented paid troll farms, long before Brock was doing it. Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.
I gave up on Bernie when he lost his spine. Russiagate is just more of his spinelessness. A yes vote on the embassy move told me who he works for, and a vote outlawing BDS will only solidify my conclusion that he, and everyone else who votes the same, are on the Israeli dole.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
@Deja
been 4 or 5 years since the flying monkeys woke me up as to what dKos really is - an operation not a website... I prefer Tulsi over anyone else and I sure would like to see her get some exposure before MSNBC / Hilary mob does its character assassination gig on Tulsi.
However, his voting in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem told me he's on the AIPAC dole or at least does Israel's bidding, despite what he says about war. No doubt in my mind he'll vote in favor of cutting our 1st Amendment wings and outlaw BDS. He's an Israeli tool like the rest of them.
Who's to say Israel isn't behind Russiagate? They invented paid troll farms, long before Brock was doing it. Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.
I gave up on Bernie when he lost his spine. Russiagate is just more of his spinelessness. A yes vote on the embassy move told me who he works for, and a vote outlawing BDS will only solidify my conclusion that he, and everyone else who votes the same, are on the Israeli dole.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
@SnappleBC
Hard to find much of late - she needs to be confronted about that.
In October 2017, she tweeted herself into a firestorm of dissatisfaction from her followers when she mildly went along with the "division" meme of Russia-gate, then seems to have retreated on further comment. I'm hoping she takes comments from her followers seriously. She did serve in the military (medical corp), and now takes strong stands against the interventionism she once peripherally participated in.
I found a New Yorker article that mentioned how some "resist" faction, following a visit to her congressional office were "expressing ambivalence" because they "wanted a more vigorous congressional investigation into Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign" from her - and apparently not getting that. Maybe the twitter firestorm sunk in?
And she did resign from the DNC in order to endorse Sanders. She did go to Syria and she did denounce what's going on there (along with a lot of other pointless war). I've been hoping she'd run. Now I need to research where she stands on Russiagate. Bernie is going to have a hard time gaining my support as long as he stands behind that monstrosity (or until he offers up some evidence to support his claims).
It's sparse and I need a much more direct answer before she'd get my support. I need that same answer from ANYONE who's going to get my support. The question is simple.
Do you believe that the Russian Government tried to influence the US elections via the company Internet Research Association? If so, what proof can you show the American public that justifies the a new cold war and the run-up to WW3?
I want clear and unambiguous answers. War with Russia is simply not something I'm willing to take lightly.
#4.2
Hard to find much of late - she needs to be confronted about that.
In October 2017, she tweeted herself into a firestorm of dissatisfaction from her followers when she mildly went along with the "division" meme of Russia-gate, then seems to have retreated on further comment. I'm hoping she takes comments from her followers seriously. She did serve in the military (medical corp), and now takes strong stands against the interventionism she once peripherally participated in.
I found a New Yorker article that mentioned how some "resist" faction, following a visit to her congressional office were "expressing ambivalence" because they "wanted a more vigorous congressional investigation into Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign" from her - and apparently not getting that. Maybe the twitter firestorm sunk in?
up
0 users have voted.
—
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
She has that populist appeal that Bernie has, is a very good speaker, is young, a woman, was in the military, and can connect to folks. We'll see how she navigates the attempts to shut her down.
Yes, she likes Israel too much. Yes, there are a couple other minor points against her.
But on the main topics, she's golden. Anti-war. For raised minimum wage, forgiveness of student debt, for more infrastructure spending at home, against global trade deals, for restoration of Glass-Steagall, for legal pot, was there (for a short bit) at Standing Rock, and has a really good environmental record.
For those who may not have seen her speak, here is the youtube clip of her nominating Bernie at the Democratic Convention in 2016:
@apenultimate
for 5 minutes, which in my rural town is par.
If she remains cozy with Israel, if she can justify apartheid, I can't tap the screen.
She has that populist appeal that Bernie has, is a very good speaker, is young, a woman, was in the military, and can connect to folks. We'll see how she navigates the attempts to shut her down.
Yes, she likes Israel too much. Yes, there are a couple other minor points against her.
But on the main topics, she's golden. Anti-war. For raised minimum wage, forgiveness of student debt, for more infrastructure spending at home, against global trade deals, for restoration of Glass-Steagall, for legal pot, was there (for a short bit) at Standing Rock, and has a really good environmental record.
For those who may not have seen her speak, here is the youtube clip of her nominating Bernie at the Democratic Convention in 2016:
If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.
I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.
I don’t see those as small things.
She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.
But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.
Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?
Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.
She has that populist appeal that Bernie has, is a very good speaker, is young, a woman, was in the military, and can connect to folks. We'll see how she navigates the attempts to shut her down.
Yes, she likes Israel too much. Yes, there are a couple other minor points against her.
But on the main topics, she's golden. Anti-war. For raised minimum wage, forgiveness of student debt, for more infrastructure spending at home, against global trade deals, for restoration of Glass-Steagall, for legal pot, was there (for a short bit) at Standing Rock, and has a really good environmental record.
For those who may not have seen her speak, here is the youtube clip of her nominating Bernie at the Democratic Convention in 2016:
@CS in AZ
No candidate is perfect. I haven't decided which if any, I'll vote for, but Gabbard or Warren would get my vote against Trump. Biden or Clinton, staying home.
If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.
I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.
I don’t see those as small things.
She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.
But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.
Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?
Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.
up
0 users have voted.
—
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
What does Biden have to do with whether or not Tulsi Gabbard is pro war? Yeah, nothing.
I didn’t say anything about “perfect” either. Here we go with the “purist” shaming again. Or attempted shaming. I’m immune. Go ahead and say I want unicorns and rainbows.
What I’m actually interested in is the truth. If saying “look at the big picture” earns me a slap, that says something.
#5.2
No candidate is perfect. I haven't decided which if any, I'll vote for, but Gabbard or Warren would get my vote against Trump. Biden or Clinton, staying home.
@CS in AZ
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.
I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,
What does Biden have to do with whether or not Tulsi Gabbard is pro war? Yeah, nothing.
I didn’t say anything about “perfect” either. Here we go with the “purist” shaming again. Or attempted shaming. I’m immune. Go ahead and say I want unicorns and rainbows.
What I’m actually interested in is the truth. If saying “look at the big picture” earns me a slap, that says something.
up
0 users have voted.
—
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Result - Trump's second term.
@doh1304
40+% of American voters are Trump idolators. Split the anti-Trump vote and he wins again.
#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.
I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
As I said, my interest is the facts and truth, about all candidates and politicians. I don’t like seeing someone labeled antiwar who really is not. That is all.
#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.
I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,
as all the other candidates spill their promises and once the field is whittled down she is going to jump in.
Bottom line for me is no one who doesn't come out and say how damaging our foreign policies have been and how they have made it so that we the people and what we want are secondary to the military then they don't get my vote. This includes how much they bow down to Israel. I can't wait to see who votes for the anti BDS bill that McConnell is bringing up a third time. Anyone who votes for that is putting Israel before American's first amendment right and they need to get voted out of congress. I can't believe that this is even being voted on.
#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.
I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,
An American is voting on the BDS bill. I never understood what fascism meant until the blinders of what our government is capable of were finally ripped off. And I don't even say that in a hyperbolic fashion. Fascism in our country has merely revealed itself when private corporations and industries hijacked the government making their interests supersede the interest of the public. The BDS Bill is but one example.
as all the other candidates spill their promises and once the field is whittled down she is going to jump in.
Bottom line for me is no one who doesn't come out and say how damaging our foreign policies have been and how they have made it so that we the people and what we want are secondary to the military then they don't get my vote. This includes how much they bow down to Israel. I can't wait to see who votes for the anti BDS bill that McConnell is bringing up a third time. Anyone who votes for that is putting Israel before American's first amendment right and they need to get voted out of congress. I can't believe that this is even being voted on.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
with Israel. And when they do Israel's bidding and sends our troops into harm's way not to protect the country, but to make Israel the only superpower in the Middle East that has nukes then they need to decide which country they want to live in. Our military engagements aren't the only thing they do for Israel. Look at how they protect Israel from being brought up on crimes against humanity for what they do to the Palestinians. And gawd knows what else they do for it.
I can't wait to see what Trump's base does when he signs the legislation that puts Israel's rights before theirs.
An American is voting on the BDS bill. I never understood what fascism meant until the blinders of what our government is capable of were finally ripped off. And I don't even say that in a hyperbolic fashion. Fascism in our country has merely revealed itself when private corporations and industries hijacked the government making their interests supersede the interest of the public. The BDS Bill is but one example.
with Israel. And when they do Israel's bidding and sends our troops into harm's way not to protect the country, but to make Israel the only superpower in the Middle East that has nukes then they need to decide which country they want to live in. Our military engagements aren't the only thing they do for Israel. Look at how they protect Israel from being brought up on crimes against humanity for what they do to the Palestinians. And gawd knows what else they do for it.
I can't wait to see what Trump's base does when he signs the legislation that puts Israel's rights before theirs.
@OzoneTom
Yeah, considering how heads explode when people don't stand for a damn song, and tell them to gtfo of this country if they don't want to stand, you're probably right.
They don't see protest as a right even though they actually pay for products in order to video themselves blowing up said products in order to appear patriotic.
Plus, you know, end times, Armageddon, all the fun stuff their preachers have been talking about all their lives. Some think they can make it happen and they'll be whisked off to heaven faster that way. (Shouldn't that be considered suicide which they also believe is the only unforgivable sin since you can't say oopsie, sorry, which is all it takes to have all bad things you do cleaned away from your responsibility?)
Jill Stein sued, demanding recounts in the 2016 presidential election. As settlement of the lawsuit, the state of Pennsylvania agreed to begin using paper ballots. The DNC sued Russia and Wikileaks, fomenting a new cold war and threatening the freedom of the press.
#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.
I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,
Jill Stein sued, demanding recounts in the 2016 presidential election. As settlement of the lawsuit, the state of Pennsylvania agreed to begin using paper ballots. The DNC sued Russia and Wikileaks, fomenting a new cold war and threatening the freedom of the press.
up
0 users have voted.
—
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
"
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good."
No offense, but for me writing that is such empty utter bullshit. We have been down that road already. This trype was used at dk against anyone who criticized Obama or Clinton.
If TG or Bernie or Warren don't oppose the wars and Jill Stein runs, I will vote for her again.
#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.
I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,
up
0 users have voted.
—
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
@divineorder
this is what makes me scratch my head.
So, someone calls you out for purity testing.
What does that make that person?
Someone who has no problem with flaws/impurities? A supporter of impurities?
And that is a positive position?
Ok. Which flaws are acceptable?
Please list them, and state why the flaws do not matter, please. Obviously, some flaws are acceptable. Which ones, and why?
Convince this purity voter that my morals, my life experiences, my ethics, need to be ignored or compromised because [insert the forgivable flaws list here].
Anyway, I have strong beliefs about right and wrong. If a candidate crosses them, I just can't vote for them.
Good for you.
"
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good."
No offense, but for me writing that is such empty utter bullshit. We have been down that road already. This trype was used at dk against anyone who criticized Obama or Clinton.
If TG or Bernie or Warren don't oppose the wars and Jill Stein runs, I will vote for her again.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
#5.2.1.1.1.5 this is what makes me scratch my head.
So, someone calls you out for purity testing.
What does that make that person?
Someone who has no problem with flaws/impurities? A supporter of impurities?
And that is a positive position?
Ok. Which flaws are acceptable?
Please list them, and state why the flaws do not matter, please. Obviously, some flaws are acceptable. Which ones, and why?
Convince this purity voter that my morals, my life experiences, my ethics, need to be ignored or compromised because [insert the forgivable flaws list here].
Anyway, I have strong beliefs about right and wrong. If a candidate crosses them, I just can't vote for them.
Good for you.
As I noted with Hillary, at some point, the lesser of two evils becomes too evil for me to endorse. That point is clearly "war criminal". I know that Gabbard has a pretty strong anti-war stance. But it's a genuine conundrum when laid against a coziness with Israel.
And for me, the whole Russiagate thing is also simply too evil to endorse. The stakes on that one are... you know... global thermonuclear war. Someone who presses the Russiagate argument had better be prepared to show me hard evidence or else I lump them into the bucket of "willing to court the end of the world for cheap political points".
I can live with imperfect to a point. But I do need someone who is roughly "on my side". Chalk it up to Obama teaching me to research my candidates much more carefully before committing. That all being said, I hope to hell I dig into Gabbard and come up clean-ish. I like the woman thoroughly so far.
#5.2.1.1
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.
I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,
up
0 users have voted.
—
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
What does Biden have to do with whether or not Tulsi Gabbard is pro war? Yeah, nothing.
I didn’t say anything about “perfect” either. Here we go with the “purist” shaming again. Or attempted shaming. I’m immune. Go ahead and say I want unicorns and rainbows.
What I’m actually interested in is the truth. If saying “look at the big picture” earns me a slap, that says something.
Whoever said we get the government we deserve sure knew what they were talking about.
#5.2
No candidate is perfect. I haven't decided which if any, I'll vote for, but Gabbard or Warren would get my vote against Trump. Biden or Clinton, staying home.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.
So, here we are again. Another election and another round of "imperfect" candidates...
What a bunch of delusional unicorn lovers we are to expect our candidates NOT to support the trillions of tax payer dollars going to corrupt war profiteers while the US war machine gleefully butchers hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.
If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.
I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.
I don’t see those as small things.
She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.
But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.
Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?
Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.
So, here we are again. Another election and another round of "imperfect" candidates...
What a bunch of delusional unicorn lovers we are to expect our candidates NOT to support the trillions of tax payer dollars going to corrupt war profiteers while the US war machine gleefully butchers hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.
If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.
I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.
I don’t see those as small things.
She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.
But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.
Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?
Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.
But again, the point is to look at the big picture.
Big Al and wendy davis have written in detail before about the specifics. I don’t know them all. But there is this good article that provides some perspective.
Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”
It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”
This is not an anti war candidate.
That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.
She sounds exactly like Obama circa 2007-08 to me.
But again, the point is to look at the big picture.
Big Al and wendy davis have written in detail before about the specifics. I don’t know them all. But there is this good article that provides some perspective.
Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”
It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”
This is not an anti war candidate.
That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.
She sounds exactly like Obama circa 2007-08 to me.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.
Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.
Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.
But again, the point is to look at the big picture.
Big Al and wendy davis have written in detail before about the specifics. I don’t know them all. But there is this good article that provides some perspective.
Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”
It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”
This is not an anti war candidate.
That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.
She sounds exactly like Obama circa 2007-08 to me.
Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.
Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.
Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.
@snoopydawg
On the campaign trail. Of course, he says so much, it's like digging through dog poop to find the ring Fido ate.
Back when Ron Paul ran, I think it was his 2nd time but not sure, he said that our foreign policy makes us targets for terrorism. The bots on the debate stage, Robot Romney included, literally laughed out loud at him. The only thing they didn't do was point at him as they laughed and laughed.
Bot zombie voters and their "elected" politicians on both sides apparently feed on the blood of innocent civilians shed at the hands of US made terrorists, and our efforts to kill them.
Side note: I wonder if the spooks who recruit them inform them that they'll not only be funded and given fleets of Toyota trucks, but that they will also be military targets of the US and its allies. Surely not.
Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.
Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.
Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.
when he defended killer robots. Not to mention the PRESUMPTION that we can go anywhere in the world and kill whoever we don't like. Science fiction writers warned of the possibility of this monstrosity long ago, but not even they dreamed of "walking in a tactical way".
Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.
Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.
Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.
But again, the point is to look at the big picture.
Big Al and wendy davis have written in detail before about the specifics. I don’t know them all. But there is this good article that provides some perspective.
Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”
It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”
This is not an anti war candidate.
That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.
She sounds exactly like Obama circa 2007-08 to me.
I remember that underneath all the smokescreen there are actually bad people in the world. There are, in fact terrorists. It is for this reason that I am not anti-drones, anti-war, or anti-anything else. I recognize that the world can be a hostile place.
In my mind, the discussion of drone usage is misplaced. I'd rather have a discussion on what, exactly, constitutes a terrorist and under what process does the US or anyone else decide to attack on foreign soil to get one. If there'd been 5 highly targeted drone strikes over Obama's tenure, each one clearly nailing a terrorist training compound far away from civilian populations in a truly surgical operation with well documented reasons then I'd have thought drone strikes were awesome.
In other words, my issues aren't exactly with war or the weapons of war. My issues are with how our own government deludes us.
If you want the US to drop bombs from drones anywhere in the world because terrorists — that is pro war.
They call it the “war on terrorists” and it is used to justify American bombs dropping on people anywhere and everywhere they say are “terrorists”.
If you think Obama was antiwar, then so is Tulsi. But they both support ongoing war in the middle east. That’s not antiwar in my book.
up
0 users have voted.
—
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
There are, in fact terrorists. It is for this reason that I am not anti-drones, anti-war, or anti-anything else. I recognize that the world can be a hostile place.
I seem to remember you having a conversation with Arendt a few days ago where you argued in favor of sovereignty, with the emphasis that we had no ethical right to use force.
I've made it pretty plain all along that I see ethical problems with "might makes right". That right there represents the entire nature of my problem with the notion that we must DOSOMETHING(tm) about those offensive bastards. In fact, the need to DOSOMETHING(tm) is exactly what defines a fanatic in my mind. It's what made the Crusades happen. It's what makes killing gays happen. "Why, look at that offensive bastard over there doing something I dislike. That's just gotta stop!"
I remember that underneath all the smokescreen there are actually bad people in the world. There are, in fact terrorists. It is for this reason that I am not anti-drones, anti-war, or anti-anything else. I recognize that the world can be a hostile place.
In my mind, the discussion of drone usage is misplaced. I'd rather have a discussion on what, exactly, constitutes a terrorist and under what process does the US or anyone else decide to attack on foreign soil to get one. If there'd been 5 highly targeted drone strikes over Obama's tenure, each one clearly nailing a terrorist training compound far away from civilian populations in a truly surgical operation with well documented reasons then I'd have thought drone strikes were awesome.
In other words, my issues aren't exactly with war or the weapons of war. My issues are with how our own government deludes us.
up
0 users have voted.
—
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
There are, in fact terrorists. It is for this reason that I am not anti-drones, anti-war, or anti-anything else. I recognize that the world can be a hostile place.
I seem to remember you having a conversation with Arendt a few days ago where you argued in favor of sovereignty, with the emphasis that we had no ethical right to use force.
I've made it pretty plain all along that I see ethical problems with "might makes right". That right there represents the entire nature of my problem with the notion that we must DOSOMETHING(tm) about those offensive bastards. In fact, the need to DOSOMETHING(tm) is exactly what defines a fanatic in my mind. It's what made the Crusades happen. It's what makes killing gays happen. "Why, look at that offensive bastard over there doing something I dislike. That's just gotta stop!"
And nothing has changed since that. If you'll remember, I also said that under some appropriate set of conditions I'd consider "blowing the fuckers up" (or something like that).
In this response I said I'd like a discussion about when and how such things ought to be done. Personally, I think it needs some sort of [credible] international tribunal. In other words, I doubt I'd ever be comfortable with the US doing such a thing on it's own. If the US wants to do that, then it should just go ahead and declare war (you know, REALLY declare war). But to use the other end of the spectrum, if 99% of the nations on the planet agreed that it was appropriate, I'd tend to think so too.
I think we all know here, though, that the word "terrorist" means nothing when the US uses it and these drone strikes have little to do with terrorism.
There are, in fact terrorists. It is for this reason that I am not anti-drones, anti-war, or anti-anything else. I recognize that the world can be a hostile place.
I seem to remember you having a conversation with Arendt a few days ago where you argued in favor of sovereignty, with the emphasis that we had no ethical right to use force.
I've made it pretty plain all along that I see ethical problems with "might makes right". That right there represents the entire nature of my problem with the notion that we must DOSOMETHING(tm) about those offensive bastards. In fact, the need to DOSOMETHING(tm) is exactly what defines a fanatic in my mind. It's what made the Crusades happen. It's what makes killing gays happen. "Why, look at that offensive bastard over there doing something I dislike. That's just gotta stop!"
up
0 users have voted.
—
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
@Battle of Blair Mountain
Hardly anti-war. I'm sure there are other "program" names I am omitting but that one comes to mind immediately. Sure that program may have killed some actual enemies, but just how many innocents were also killed in the process?
#5.2.3.1 uhh, yeah that IS an antiwar candidate. Small teams taking out terrorists police raid vs entire armies invading nations?
How on fucking earth can you be more antiwar than that?
up
0 users have voted.
—
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
@Battle of Blair Mountain@Battle of Blair Mountain
If you don't, you might want to reassess, it's been going on officially for over 17 years and is the real neverending war. Gabbard is certainly fully on board with the fake war OF terror, in fact, she's been out front in wrongly labeling the terrorist problem as radical islam, which is the excuse the neocons used to justify the war OF terror in the first place and why she's been a fav of Fox news.
#5.2.3.1 uhh, yeah that IS an antiwar candidate. Small teams taking out terrorists police raid vs entire armies invading nations?
How on fucking earth can you be more antiwar than that?
@Big Al
and while she supports a right wing cult of her own. She doesn't just support the fake and illegal war OF terror, she is a fervent proponent, along with the lies that go with it.
#5.2.3.1.3#5.2.3.1.3 If you don't, you might want to reassess, it's been going on officially for over 17 years and is the real neverending war. Gabbard is certainly fully on board with the fake war OF terror, in fact, she's been out front in wrongly labeling the terrorist problem as radical islam, which is the excuse the neocons used to justify the war OF terror in the first place and why she's been a fav of Fox news.
@CS in AZ
skilled(at bring death and destruction to innocent civilians) special operations units(Death Squads)? THOSE units? Yeah, like they're NOT creating More 'terrorists' as we go?
Riiiight. . .
But again, the point is to look at the big picture.
Big Al and wendy davis have written in detail before about the specifics. I don’t know them all. But there is this good article that provides some perspective.
Like campaign-era Trump, Gabbard may be against miring the United States in blunderous, short-sighted conflicts that backfire, but she’s more than willing to use America’s military might to go after suspected terrorists around the world (and inevitably kill and maim civilians in the process). In the same Truthout interview, responding to a question about drones, Gabbard said that “there is a place for the use of this technology, as well as smaller, quick-strike special force teams versus tens, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying space within a country.”
It’s a point she’s repeated again and again. Responding to questions from Honolulu Civil Beat in 2012, Gabbard said that “the best way to defeat the terrorists is through strategically placed, small quick-strike special forces and drones — the strategy that took out Osama Bin Laden.” She told Fox in 2014 that she would direct “the great military that we have” to conduct “unconventional strategic precise operations to take out these terrorists wherever they are.” The same year, she told Civil Beat that military strategy must “put the safety of Americans above all else” and “utilize our highly skilled special operations forces, work with and support trusted foreign partners to seek and destroy this threat.”
This is not an anti war candidate.
That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.
She sounds exactly like Obama circa 2007-08 to me.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Tapper elevated the Aban Alebed's ridiculous tweet to Trump asking for help. Of course the media pushed her on to Americans because who could resist a cute little girl spreading propaganda?
"Obviously Assad is responsible for thousands of deaths and millions being displaced....."
Uh, no. This is not what actually happened, dude. He's a tool for the MICC of course and after she told him the truth about the 'moderate Syrian rebels' he just moved on and asked her about her trip. She tells him how our moderate Syrian rebels kiddnapped, raped her and killed her father and he just said, "thank you for telling us your 'story."!! For gawd's sake it wasn't a story. I want people who support the wars to just think about what they would feel if this happened to their daughters and cities. That people don't see anything wrong with our troops occupying people's country is so beyond my comprehension. But that day will come eventually if just one country decides that they have had enough with our warmongering.
Gawd looking at the destruction of Aleppo. I could go on all night about this tragedy...
Tapper elevated the Aban Alebed's ridiculous tweet to Trump asking for help. Of course the media pushed her on to Americans because who could resist a cute little girl spreading propaganda?
"Obviously Assad is responsible for thousands of deaths and millions being displaced....."
Uh, no. This is not what actually happened, dude. He's a tool for the MICC of course and after she told him the truth about the 'moderate Syrian rebels' he just moved on and asked her about her trip. She tells him how our moderate Syrian rebels kiddnapped, raped her and killed her father and he just said, "thank you for telling us your 'story."!! For gawd's sake it wasn't a story. I want people who support the wars to just think about what they would feel if this happened to their daughters and cities. That people don't see anything wrong with our troops occupying people's country is so beyond my comprehension. But that day will come eventually if just one country decides that they have had enough with our warmongering.
Gawd looking at the destruction of Aleppo. I could go on all night about this tragedy...
Let's start with a big group of candidates instead of just two. Let's debate things for a few primaries and not have the contest over before it starts.
Let's put in a bunch of neoliberals and split the centrist vote, maybe keep them each below 15%.
up
0 users have voted.
—
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
@WoodsDweller
Creepy Joe may be the current favorite but others like Pocahontas and the Camel are going to jump in and muck it up for everyone. Forget about Cory Spartacus. If this gay bathroom assault proves to have legs, he's a cooked book.
My deepest hope is for the Evil Queen to get off her sick bed and throw herself into the battle--guaranteed death knell for Dem party.
I love(d) Bernie. Contributed to the limit for him. Went one of his rallies. Caucused with San Luis Obispo Dems to vote for his delegates to the DNC. Note the past tense. I cannot forgive his sheep dogging. His failure to at any time pursue an aggressive agenda against HRC, such as emails and private servers and cheating on debates. He sold out--he sold ME out. His domestic policies are great. His foreign policy is dubious. Basically I think he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the MIC, let alone Dem elitists. He will be run over like a snow ball on a city street if elected--which he won't be--even if he gets the nomination.
Tulsi putting herself into the picture is more likely consciousness raising for name recognition. Start now but hope not to win. All the real progressives gotta learn this: as long as the Dem establishment exists, there will NOT be a progressive in the WH--not Bernie, not Tulsi. They would rather hand the WH back to Trump if a progressive wins the nomination.
Let's start with a big group of candidates instead of just two. Let's debate things for a few primaries and not have the contest over before it starts.
Let's put in a bunch of neoliberals and split the centrist vote, maybe keep them each below 15%.
#7 Creepy Joe may be the current favorite but others like Pocahontas and the Camel are going to jump in and muck it up for everyone. Forget about Cory Spartacus. If this gay bathroom assault proves to have legs, he's a cooked book.
My deepest hope is for the Evil Queen to get off her sick bed and throw herself into the battle--guaranteed death knell for Dem party.
I love(d) Bernie. Contributed to the limit for him. Went one of his rallies. Caucused with San Luis Obispo Dems to vote for his delegates to the DNC. Note the past tense. I cannot forgive his sheep dogging. His failure to at any time pursue an aggressive agenda against HRC, such as emails and private servers and cheating on debates. He sold out--he sold ME out. His domestic policies are great. His foreign policy is dubious. Basically I think he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the MIC, let alone Dem elitists. He will be run over like a snow ball on a city street if elected--which he won't be--even if he gets the nomination.
Tulsi putting herself into the picture is more likely consciousness raising for name recognition. Start now but hope not to win. All the real progressives gotta learn this: as long as the Dem establishment exists, there will NOT be a progressive in the WH--not Bernie, not Tulsi. They would rather hand the WH back to Trump if a progressive wins the nomination.
up
0 users have voted.
—
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Comments
Tulsi?
"She must be stopped!!" -- The Democratic Powers That Be
ToP is already attacking her
Why? She called out two of her associates for how they questioned one of Trump's picks for judgeship. I don't know if it was good or bad that she did it though. But the claws for her are out because she met with Assad. You know ... the guy who dropped chemical weapons on his citizens and wasn't punished enough by Trump because he bombed empty buildings and didn't kill anyone. Gawd I wish I was joking about this.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
They were questioning
the potential judge about his association with a Catholic group. It was a ridiculous line of questioning.
What's next? Ban all Catholics from office?
dfarrah
They had a right to question this candidate
about his membership in the Knights of Columbus. If you do some reading about this group you will find that they are not a benign charity group. They are another group that spends millions on lobbying government to stop abortion and deny gay rights. If he belongs to a country club that barred blacks, would it be OK to question him about that? Of course it would. This is the same thing.
For too long in this country we have allowed religion a pass on its underhanded dealings in our government because no one wants to cross the line of "disrespect for religious beliefs". If religion wants to play in the secular arena that is supposed to be our government, then we better damn well hold their feet to the fire of scrutiny and challenge.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Not all religious beliefs
I agree with everything else, though.
As long as you claim to be Christian, walking the walk not required, you're protected from criticism. If you're Jewish, you're accepted by xtians because chosen people but pitied because you killed Jesus -- we just won't talk about it in mixed company. If you're Muslim, you're evil incarnate and need to gtfo because terrorism and sharia law. All the others like Hindu, Buddhist, etc, are tolerated but thought of as weird cult followers, like Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.
Stand for the flag and kneel for the cross, after all. Sigh . . .
Heh. Max Kaiser said something to the effect that he predicts
Alexandria O-C has I think 80% chance of winning in 2024.
Now that would really cause emotional breakdowns amongst TPTB/Dims.
...
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
How long will
it take for her to turn into Kos?
dfarrah
kos who ? :)
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
The Media Tell
An appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show means she must be a threat to the status quo.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Yeah, aint that some shit?
Warren apprently appeared on Maddow recently as well so..
Course I don't watch but found out through tweetr.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
I know there are
a lot of questions about her and objections to her, but anyone who is military and anti-war, someone with enough courage to meet with Assad and question the Obama/Clinton death policy definitely has my interest. Big Al has raised very good reasons to doubt her in our discussions, but things are so bad, so hideous, I'm at least listening to any person who doesn't sound like a war monger bot.
Agree
If she is really anti war then I am very interested. Need to know where she lands on climate.
Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation
Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook
I don't think she has a real chance
But she would rank up there with me, a close second behind Bernie.
@gjohnsit my plan is to back her
my plan is to back her and hope she does well enough to be Bernies running mate. But not so well she drags Bernie down.
as VP. Bernie-Tulsi 2020
is a winning combination.
She can run for Bernie's 2nd term, Bernie handing her the baton.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Bernie's perfect pairing, for me, is a peace candidate.
As a critic of US interventionist policy, Tulsi is the perfect compliment to Bernie's strong domestic programs.
Where's Bernie going to get all that funding for his ambitious policies? Right at his side; tell 'em Tulsi. She voted nay twice on the bloated NDAA for 2019. Out of Syria. Out of Afghanistan.
Think of her as the anti-Cheney.
"If I sit silently, I have sinned." - Mossadegh
Bernie's curmudgeon style and genitals
give him a broader appeal across ideological lines. The diehard partisan sheep aren't budging off the Third Way's choice. It is everyone in between that has to be convinced.
Bernie is going to run and has done everything but formally announced. They couldn’t wait to step all over it with the Intercept's second telling of the tale of the same someone got sexually harassed by the other same someone sometime during Bernie’s campaign three years ago. No matter how many candidates run, the party knives will be out more and bigger than ever for Bernie. The centrist neoliberals’ like Kos and his trolls hate, hate, hate him for daring to rock Clinton's boat.
The biggest enemy of my enemy is my best friend.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I think Sanders/Gabbard would be a formidable ticket
Especially if they run as Green/independent. The Dems are barely competitive head-to-head against the Reps; add a second front to the battle and I truly believe the populists will prevail.
I have mixed feelings about her.
I am so jaded, I have no faith any politician really means what they say.
If she "sounds" better than the rest of the field, I might roll out of bed and vote in a primary.
The days of me sending money, sticking up a sign in my yard, calling people...they are over.
No politician gets anything from me but a tap on a computer screen, if that. That is about the same they seem to give to me.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp then TPTB have already
then TPTB have already won.
Anti corporatists need small donors. Dont give up your power for change.
No money for any candidate ever again.
The TPTB guys that spoiled my check writing were Obama and Sanders.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I understand.
I'll just donate if the candidate appears to need some help, and only a few dollars at that.
I never gave money to Obama and Bernie (did for Dean, though). I would have given money to Bernie, but his fundraising was already going very well. But I caucused for him.
I was going to blow off the upcoming caucus, but if it gets interesting, I may just go.
dfarrah
They already have
They control the DHS. The DHS controls the electoral process. Whoever is elected, is elected because TPTB prefer them there.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Bingo
Why aren't people talking about this? So not only is DHS running the elections, the DNC still has delegates and superdelegates investigation in the elections. Has anyone from the DNC renounced their saying that they could go in a back room and decide who they want to be their candidate?
This lawsuit against the DNC still hasn't started as far as I know and if it does before the primary starts what then?
Letting the delegates override the will of voters could see a repeat of the last primary where Bernie or some one like him wins, but that's not who they want to run.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
I suspect that's because it makes people uncomfortable
Politics as a vehicle for change is what we know. To eschew that would require some serious re-categorization of how to make the world safe from those who are trying to defile it.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Above, it was noted
that she hadn't announced which party.
There is enough time to get a new party going to hold caucuses and primaries in all of the states.
dfarrah
Actions speak louder than words
And she did resign from the DNC in order to endorse Sanders. She did go to Syria and she did denounce what's going on there (along with a lot of other pointless war). I've been hoping she'd run. Now I need to research where she stands on Russiagate. Bernie is going to have a hard time gaining my support as long as he stands behind that monstrosity (or until he offers up some evidence to support his claims).
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Who you support is your own business...
While Warren, Tulsi and the rest of the bunch were hiding in the closet instead during Clinton's run, Bernie stood up, stood up, stood up, and is still standing up. He is the visionary. It is his agenda that changed the national conversation. He gave form and substance to the idle bitching about the parties.
Splitting the vote so they can take all the progressives out and slide Kamala in is exactly what they hope to do.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
True, he did all
that and more. And before people say he punk'ed out and sheepdipped, we'll Never know what happened behind the curtain. Did they show him the missing frames from zapruder? How Did he get that bashed head? Were there threats?
How would any of Us handled it? Think about it, how Much does Each One of Us have that We are Willing to Lose for an Ideal?
For ourselves, maybe not so much.
But to risk family, or friends lives is maybe asking a Little much of anybody.
ymmv
fuck
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
For a bunch of armchair critics, us, to take down Bernie
with a bat is ridiculous. Bernie stuck his neck out when no one else would. For that everyone owes him some loyalty. Tulsi is great. I could live with Warren. Both would make good VPs. If Bernie asks for my support, he comes first. Nothing would make the Kos assholes of the world happier than to have Bernie's base abandon him for a new darling of the left.
Obviously he has to continue to deserve the support, but so far, he's done nothing in my book that precludes it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
How about I just thank him instead?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
And he demonstrated that
he could fundraise enough money from small dollar donors. Dems were all stuck in this notion that a candidate had to have, no ifs ands or buts, wealthy donors lined up.
I think that in itself was a huge accomplishment. Bring the right policies, and a candidate will get the money.
dfarrah
I sort of agree
And honestly I've been willing to roll with the "Russiagate" lies from Sanders up till now under the theory of political expedience. But that excuse ends if I'm considering him as President. I do not need or want another Obama and he's either going to tell us the truth about wars or he is not. I'm not one of the "Sanders is a sheepdog" crowd. The guy has a long track record of doing [mostly] good. But Russiagate = WW3. As lies go, that's sort of a whopper, no? It demands an explanation.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Russiagate is where my support ended
I could (reluctantly) look past other foreign policy shortcomings, but this is the big one, along with it gives the DNC a pass for 2016. I don’t buy the “he was threatened” theory and I don’t accept he doesn’t know better. Everyone has that line, and pushing Russiagate was mine. It just seems inconsistent with everything else he supposedly stands for.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Losing his spine in 2016?
I was so disappointed.
However, his voting in favor of moving the embassy to Jerusalem told me he's on the AIPAC dole or at least does Israel's bidding, despite what he says about war. No doubt in my mind he'll vote in favor of cutting our 1st Amendment wings and outlaw BDS. He's an Israeli tool like the rest of them.
Who's to say Israel isn't behind Russiagate? They invented paid troll farms, long before Brock was doing it. Some of those trolls still scour Dkos and swarm in like flying monkeys if anyone dares to criticize Israeli brutality or apartheid or policy and repeatedly call the critics anti semitic, even getting them put in time out.
I gave up on Bernie when he lost his spine. Russiagate is just more of his spinelessness. A yes vote on the embassy move told me who he works for, and a vote outlawing BDS will only solidify my conclusion that he, and everyone else who votes the same, are on the Israeli dole.
Did Israel learn from us?
Or did we learn from them? Hard to tell anymore.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Flying monkeys did me a favor...
been 4 or 5 years since the flying monkeys woke me up as to what dKos really is - an operation not a website... I prefer Tulsi over anyone else and I sure would like to see her get some exposure before MSNBC / Hilary mob does its character assassination gig on Tulsi.
Peace
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Where she stands on Russia-gate
Hard to find much of late - she needs to be confronted about that.
In October 2017, she tweeted herself into a firestorm of dissatisfaction from her followers when she mildly went along with the "division" meme of Russia-gate, then seems to have retreated on further comment. I'm hoping she takes comments from her followers seriously. She did serve in the military (medical corp), and now takes strong stands against the interventionism she once peripherally participated in.
I found a New Yorker article that mentioned how some "resist" faction, following a visit to her congressional office were "expressing ambivalence" because they "wanted a more vigorous congressional investigation into Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign" from her - and apparently not getting that. Maybe the twitter firestorm sunk in?
"If I sit silently, I have sinned." - Mossadegh
Thanks for that information!
It's sparse and I need a much more direct answer before she'd get my support. I need that same answer from ANYONE who's going to get my support. The question is simple.
Do you believe that the Russian Government tried to influence the US elections via the company Internet Research Association? If so, what proof can you show the American public that justifies the a new cold war and the run-up to WW3?
I want clear and unambiguous answers. War with Russia is simply not something I'm willing to take lightly.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
She May Surprise
She has that populist appeal that Bernie has, is a very good speaker, is young, a woman, was in the military, and can connect to folks. We'll see how she navigates the attempts to shut her down.
Yes, she likes Israel too much. Yes, there are a couple other minor points against her.
But on the main topics, she's golden. Anti-war. For raised minimum wage, forgiveness of student debt, for more infrastructure spending at home, against global trade deals, for restoration of Glass-Steagall, for legal pot, was there (for a short bit) at Standing Rock, and has a really good environmental record.
For those who may not have seen her speak, here is the youtube clip of her nominating Bernie at the Democratic Convention in 2016:
Gabbard Nominates Bernie 2016
She might be worth standing in the voting line
for 5 minutes, which in my rural town is par.
If she remains cozy with Israel, if she can justify apartheid, I can't tap the screen.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
If she likes Israel too much, hard to imagine how she’s anti-war
If she’s pro Israel, that is fundamentally the opposite of being anti war. There will never be any end to the US wars in the middle east as long as priorities include defending Israel.
I understand she is against certain wars, (dumb wars, perhaps?) but she’s overall very pro-war when it comes to the war of terror and the US fighting for Israel.
I don’t see those as small things.
She is an appealing candidate in many ways. I see why.
But, it’s honestly very weird to see these very pro-war politicians being given an antiwar mantle because of their opposition to specific conflicts, while still supporting war and more war in the big picture.
Does anyone not remember that Obama was widely believed to be antiwar, for the same exact reason?
Everyone should take care to listen to everything she has said, not just the parts you like.
Do you prefer Biden?
No candidate is perfect. I haven't decided which if any, I'll vote for, but Gabbard or Warren would get my vote against Trump. Biden or Clinton, staying home.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
No. I don’t support creepy Biden.
What does Biden have to do with whether or not Tulsi Gabbard is pro war? Yeah, nothing.
I didn’t say anything about “perfect” either. Here we go with the “purist” shaming again. Or attempted shaming. I’m immune. Go ahead and say I want unicorns and rainbows.
What I’m actually interested in is the truth. If saying “look at the big picture” earns me a slap, that says something.
Didn't say that
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good. Biden will run and will be the DNC puppet to beat. If you reject everyone that is not perfect, the DNC wins. because SOMEONE will be the nominee and it won't be the Archangel Gabriel.
But if you prefer to not vote because every candidate has a flaw, that is your right. And I won't be saying that you voted for Trump like TOP would.
I merely ask you to reconsider and consider that candidates are human not ideal demi-gods.
If there is a candidate you prefer to Gabbard, by all means support that candidate. I don't know if I support her either. Right now I lean to Warren, but I think her general election chances are zilch for image reasons. I voted for Stein last time but I'm disgusted at her trying to get a recount for HRC in Michigan,
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Sounds like that's exactly what you're saying
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
WOW! You need to go back to school and learn how to read.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I’m not invested in the dem primary
As I said, my interest is the facts and truth, about all candidates and politicians. I don’t like seeing someone labeled antiwar who really is not. That is all.
My guess is that Hillary is going to sit back and watch
as all the other candidates spill their promises and once the field is whittled down she is going to jump in.
Bottom line for me is no one who doesn't come out and say how damaging our foreign policies have been and how they have made it so that we the people and what we want are secondary to the military then they don't get my vote. This includes how much they bow down to Israel. I can't wait to see who votes for the anti BDS bill that McConnell is bringing up a third time. Anyone who votes for that is putting Israel before American's first amendment right and they need to get voted out of congress. I can't believe that this is even being voted on.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
I can't believe anyone who calls themselves
An American is voting on the BDS bill. I never understood what fascism meant until the blinders of what our government is capable of were finally ripped off. And I don't even say that in a hyperbolic fashion. Fascism in our country has merely revealed itself when private corporations and industries hijacked the government making their interests supersede the interest of the public. The BDS Bill is but one example.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Many congress members have dual citizenship
with Israel. And when they do Israel's bidding and sends our troops into harm's way not to protect the country, but to make Israel the only superpower in the Middle East that has nukes then they need to decide which country they want to live in. Our military engagements aren't the only thing they do for Israel. Look at how they protect Israel from being brought up on crimes against humanity for what they do to the Palestinians. And gawd knows what else they do for it.
I can't wait to see what Trump's base does when he signs the legislation that puts Israel's rights before theirs.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
"I can't wait to see what Trump's base does ..."
Roll over for a belly-scratch?
Lol
Yeah, considering how heads explode when people don't stand for a damn song, and tell them to gtfo of this country if they don't want to stand, you're probably right.
They don't see protest as a right even though they actually pay for products in order to video themselves blowing up said products in order to appear patriotic.
Plus, you know, end times, Armageddon, all the fun stuff their preachers have been talking about all their lives. Some think they can make it happen and they'll be whisked off to heaven faster that way. (Shouldn't that be considered suicide which they also believe is the only unforgivable sin since you can't say oopsie, sorry, which is all it takes to have all bad things you do cleaned away from your responsibility?)
Sigh . . .
Jill Stein lawsuit
Jill Stein sued, demanding recounts in the 2016 presidential election. As settlement of the lawsuit, the state of Pennsylvania agreed to begin using paper ballots. The DNC sued Russia and Wikileaks, fomenting a new cold war and threatening the freedom of the press.
This was a big win for election integrity.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Please don't write that here
"
I said that you should consider the perfect as the enemy of the good."
No offense, but for me writing that is such empty utter bullshit. We have been down that road already. This trype was used at dk against anyone who criticized Obama or Clinton.
If TG or Bernie or Warren don't oppose the wars and Jill Stein runs, I will vote for her again.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Thinking "purity tests" through,
this is what makes me scratch my head.
So, someone calls you out for purity testing.
What does that make that person?
Someone who has no problem with flaws/impurities? A supporter of impurities?
And that is a positive position?
Ok. Which flaws are acceptable?
Please list them, and state why the flaws do not matter, please. Obviously, some flaws are acceptable. Which ones, and why?
Convince this purity voter that my morals, my life experiences, my ethics, need to be ignored or compromised because [insert the forgivable flaws list here].
Anyway, I have strong beliefs about right and wrong. If a candidate crosses them, I just can't vote for them.
Good for you.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Boom-shaka-laka! Er, um ^^^ This!
So sorry I missed this, earlier.
Preach, sister!
To be fair, I dispensed with "is not perfect" in 2016
As I noted with Hillary, at some point, the lesser of two evils becomes too evil for me to endorse. That point is clearly "war criminal". I know that Gabbard has a pretty strong anti-war stance. But it's a genuine conundrum when laid against a coziness with Israel.
And for me, the whole Russiagate thing is also simply too evil to endorse. The stakes on that one are... you know... global thermonuclear war. Someone who presses the Russiagate argument had better be prepared to show me hard evidence or else I lump them into the bucket of "willing to court the end of the world for cheap political points".
I can live with imperfect to a point. But I do need someone who is roughly "on my side". Chalk it up to Obama teaching me to research my candidates much more carefully before committing. That all being said, I hope to hell I dig into Gabbard and come up clean-ish. I like the woman thoroughly so far.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
And I won't vote for
Harris or Booker (or Biden), either.
dfarrah
So that's the choice ?Tulsi or Biden?
Whoever said we get the government we deserve sure knew what they were talking about.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I don't see that as a small thing either
So, here we are again. Another election and another round of "imperfect" candidates...
What a bunch of delusional unicorn lovers we are to expect our candidates NOT to support the trillions of tax payer dollars going to corrupt war profiteers while the US war machine gleefully butchers hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Offbeat web comic “Perry Bible Fellowship” re Dems & unicorns
http://pbfcomics.com/comics/the-last-unicorns/
Hilarious website
Reminds me of the Charlie the Unicorn videos.
[video:https://youtu.be/Fu2DcHzokew]
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Hahahaha!
Offbeat and funny! How did you run across it?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Probably via computer-geek humor comic “xkcd”
At the bottom of xkcd cartoon pages, author-artist Randall Munroe includes a list of links to other people’s web comics that he likes.
For the cat lover
As "parent" to 3 cats of my own, I enjoyed this comic too: http://pbfcomics.com/comics/cats/
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
She exposed Israel's proxy forces in Syria
so she is definitely not in Israels pocket.
This article exposes some deep state shenanigans and how Tulsi helped expose them.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/01/25/epic-tulsi-gabbard-calls...
That’s good
But again, the point is to look at the big picture.
Big Al and wendy davis have written in detail before about the specifics. I don’t know them all. But there is this good article that provides some perspective.
Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend
This is not an anti war candidate.
That doesn’t mean don’t support her if you want. But do it with your eyes wide open.
She sounds exactly like Obama circa 2007-08 to me.
I wouldn't be surprised
If the Democratic candidates actually studied what Obama said during the 2008 election and merely reworded it a bit for their own purposes.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
This is the same argument I had with people about
Obama's use of drones. The "they save American troop's lives" doesn't fly with me when we are in countries illegally and the drones kill more civilians than the supposed terrorists. Instead of trying to limit civilian deaths Obama just lowered the age of males to 14 and counted them as terrorists.
Drones are weapons of mass destruction and unlawful and unless there is a imminent threat to our country and it's proven then they should be outlawed just like chemical weapons and cluster bombs, but we know how this country follows the rules of laws for wars.
Bernie's thoughts were pretty close to hers when it comes from drones. One more thing I'd like to see some candidate to say is how we are responsible for the rise of ISIS and our supporting them must end. But I doubt anyone can say that and get elected. Just look at how many democrats are telling AOC to shut up and get in line with the party's ideas. And it looks like she is doing it at some level.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
@snoopydawg I just posted the
I just posted the link to Tulsi exposing exactly that.
Trump said we created ISIS
On the campaign trail. Of course, he says so much, it's like digging through dog poop to find the ring Fido ate.
Back when Ron Paul ran, I think it was his 2nd time but not sure, he said that our foreign policy makes us targets for terrorism. The bots on the debate stage, Robot Romney included, literally laughed out loud at him. The only thing they didn't do was point at him as they laughed and laughed.
Bot zombie voters and their "elected" politicians on both sides apparently feed on the blood of innocent civilians shed at the hands of US made terrorists, and our efforts to kill them.
Side note: I wonder if the spooks who recruit them inform them that they'll not only be funded and given fleets of Toyota trucks, but that they will also be military targets of the US and its allies. Surely not.
Yeah, I lost an old friend over that
when he defended killer robots. Not to mention the PRESUMPTION that we can go anywhere in the world and kill whoever we don't like. Science fiction writers warned of the possibility of this monstrosity long ago, but not even they dreamed of "walking in a tactical way".
@CS in AZ uhh, yeah that IS
uhh, yeah that IS an antiwar candidate. Small teams taking out terrorists police raid vs entire armies invading nations?
How on fucking earth can you be more antiwar than that?
??
Ok. “Antiwar” means against war.
If you want the US to drop bombs from drones anywhere in the world because terrorists — that is pro war.
They call it the “war on terrorists” and it is used to justify American bombs dropping on people anywhere and everywhere they say are “terrorists”.
If you think Obama was antiwar, then so is Tulsi. But they both support ongoing war in the middle east. That’s not antiwar in my book.
I don't fully agree
I remember that underneath all the smokescreen there are actually bad people in the world. There are, in fact terrorists. It is for this reason that I am not anti-drones, anti-war, or anti-anything else. I recognize that the world can be a hostile place.
In my mind, the discussion of drone usage is misplaced. I'd rather have a discussion on what, exactly, constitutes a terrorist and under what process does the US or anyone else decide to attack on foreign soil to get one. If there'd been 5 highly targeted drone strikes over Obama's tenure, each one clearly nailing a terrorist training compound far away from civilian populations in a truly surgical operation with well documented reasons then I'd have thought drone strikes were awesome.
In other words, my issues aren't exactly with war or the weapons of war. My issues are with how our own government deludes us.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
The issue of sovereignty
I seem to remember you having a conversation with Arendt a few days ago where you argued in favor of sovereignty, with the emphasis that we had no ethical right to use force.
https://caucus99percent.com/comment/390105#comment-390105
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Oh snap!
Or should I say, Oh Snapple?
You are correct, I did.
And nothing has changed since that. If you'll remember, I also said that under some appropriate set of conditions I'd consider "blowing the fuckers up" (or something like that).
In this response I said I'd like a discussion about when and how such things ought to be done. Personally, I think it needs some sort of [credible] international tribunal. In other words, I doubt I'd ever be comfortable with the US doing such a thing on it's own. If the US wants to do that, then it should just go ahead and declare war (you know, REALLY declare war). But to use the other end of the spectrum, if 99% of the nations on the planet agreed that it was appropriate, I'd tend to think so too.
I think we all know here, though, that the word "terrorist" means nothing when the US uses it and these drone strikes have little to do with terrorism.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Phoenix program anyone?
Hardly anti-war. I'm sure there are other "program" names I am omitting but that one comes to mind immediately. Sure that program may have killed some actual enemies, but just how many innocents were also killed in the process?
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Do you consider the fake war OF terror a war?
If you don't, you might want to reassess, it's been going on officially for over 17 years and is the real neverending war. Gabbard is certainly fully on board with the fake war OF terror, in fact, she's been out front in wrongly labeling the terrorist problem as radical islam, which is the excuse the neocons used to justify the war OF terror in the first place and why she's been a fav of Fox news.
Here, in her own words while she asks for your vote,
and while she supports a right wing cult of her own. She doesn't just support the fake and illegal war OF terror, she is a fervent proponent, along with the lies that go with it.
https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25013
OH! Our highly
skilled(at bring death and destruction to innocent civilians) special operations units(Death Squads)? THOSE units? Yeah, like they're NOT creating More 'terrorists' as we go?
Riiiight. . .
fuck
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Good grief
Tapper elevated the Aban Alebed's ridiculous tweet to Trump asking for help. Of course the media pushed her on to Americans because who could resist a cute little girl spreading propaganda?
[video:https://youtu.be/ID223ToMVxM]
"Obviously Assad is responsible for thousands of deaths and millions being displaced....."
Uh, no. This is not what actually happened, dude. He's a tool for the MICC of course and after she told him the truth about the 'moderate Syrian rebels' he just moved on and asked her about her trip. She tells him how our moderate Syrian rebels kiddnapped, raped her and killed her father and he just said, "thank you for telling us your 'story."!! For gawd's sake it wasn't a story. I want people who support the wars to just think about what they would feel if this happened to their daughters and cities. That people don't see anything wrong with our troops occupying people's country is so beyond my comprehension. But that day will come eventually if just one country decides that they have had enough with our warmongering.
Gawd looking at the destruction of Aleppo. I could go on all night about this tragedy...
Thanks for posting this article.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
I like what she says on the clip.
sounded real to me.
hope she gets a chance on the big stage.
American people need to know exactly what they are supporting.
MSM shills won't say it.
yes !!!
I am totally working for her
Yippe-I-o ki ay
Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation
Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook
I welcome her to the contest.
Let's start with a big group of candidates instead of just two. Let's debate things for a few primaries and not have the contest over before it starts.
Let's put in a bunch of neoliberals and split the centrist vote, maybe keep them each below 15%.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
There will be many neoliberal Dems running in 2020
Creepy Joe may be the current favorite but others like Pocahontas and the Camel are going to jump in and muck it up for everyone. Forget about Cory Spartacus. If this gay bathroom assault proves to have legs, he's a cooked book.
My deepest hope is for the Evil Queen to get off her sick bed and throw herself into the battle--guaranteed death knell for Dem party.
I love(d) Bernie. Contributed to the limit for him. Went one of his rallies. Caucused with San Luis Obispo Dems to vote for his delegates to the DNC. Note the past tense. I cannot forgive his sheep dogging. His failure to at any time pursue an aggressive agenda against HRC, such as emails and private servers and cheating on debates. He sold out--he sold ME out. His domestic policies are great. His foreign policy is dubious. Basically I think he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the MIC, let alone Dem elitists. He will be run over like a snow ball on a city street if elected--which he won't be--even if he gets the nomination.
Tulsi putting herself into the picture is more likely consciousness raising for name recognition. Start now but hope not to win. All the real progressives gotta learn this: as long as the Dem establishment exists, there will NOT be a progressive in the WH--not Bernie, not Tulsi. They would rather hand the WH back to Trump if a progressive wins the nomination.
"Spartacus?" "The Camel?" "Gay bathroom assault???"
I'm missing some references....
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
Pages