Tulsi States She Will Not Run as a Third Party Candidate

Submitted by apenultimate on Sat, 08/10/2019 - 9:10pm

In Iowa, Tulsi evidently stated to reporters that if she is not the Democratic nominee, she will support whoever the nominee is and will NOT run under a third party.

As disappointing as this is to some, it does not really surprise me. I do wonder how long she will stay in the race, though. I think she would have a fairly good shot at winning the April 4 Hawaii primary and taking those 22 pledged delegates (out of 3,768 total).

I'm wondering what Tulsi and especially Bernie will do if Biden is in front, but Warren is number two and fairly far behind. If Bernie racks up a significant number of delegates, does he throw his delegate support behind Warren and try to be a "king-maker" in a contested convention (maybe for a VP spot)? Hmmmm . . .

Just musing out loud. I know things are waaaay too early yet and will change a few times over.

Tags:

#Tulsi 2020

Vote

Comments

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 08/10/2019 - 9:26pm

I am not surprised

that she is sticking with the party, through thick or thin.
That is what they all do.
I am not disappointed. I expected that statement from Tulsi.
I have exactly one friend in Honolulu who is politically aware, although not an activist. She falls on the liberal side.
She tells me Tulsi is a very controversial figure, a right-winger acting otherwise.
I am not sure she can pull off a win for the 22 delegates.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 08/10/2019 - 10:01pm

Tulsi's support of Dem nominee will be tepid at most

@on the cusp She will likely not campaign beyond the confines of Hawai'i. And you won't hear Russia-Russia-Russia from her. She will also not support Jerry Nadler's Quixotic quest for impeachment--a move that will 100% guarantee the Rs to regain the House by a comfortable majority.

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 1:07pm

Her support

@Alligator Ed will be all the more tepid if the nominee is tepid, such as Biden or Klobuchar. And not much campaigning for any sort of nominee unless she picks up the pace in polling. If Ds should be so stupid as to nom Kamala, Tulsi would do no campaigning.

On impeachment, right now she's agin. But we've seen her evolve on other issues in the recent past. And she would be getting in, if she does, for the more narrow notion of beginning a formal impeachment inquiry, and not on the ultimate question of whether the disgrace to humanity Trump should be removed by Congress.

Events, including more Trump misconduct or perhaps another regime change war, could force her hand of course. With Donald, we are always no more than a bad golf day or crazy tweet away from war abroad or civil war at home. He's at least as unhinged as Madman Nixon who had to be protected from starting a world war by his SecDef.

As for the stupid, baseless canard that Tulsi is somehow a closet RWer, she sure has done a good job of fooling the people of her district -- 77% support and more in 3-4 elections -- and has hoodwinked some very smart people, including backer Prof Stephen Cohen. But there are many ways to smear authentic candidates on the progressive left, including using anonymous third parties supposedly well placed to know the score.

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 2:06pm

I suspect that anonymous third party smear was

@wokkamile directed at me. I was actually shocked by my friend's reaction to her.
I can speak for myself that her War on Terror is pure bullshit.
Sticking with the party is pure bullshit.
Giving any support at all to Modi is bull shit.
Belonging to AIPAC is bullshit.
Voting for the Anti BDS resolution was pure bullshit.
Every time a Tulsi supporter writes an essay, I find something else to dislike about her.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 3:30pm

If we carefully scrutinize

@on the cusp any candidate's public record, we are bound to be disappointed, or worse, depending on how harsh and unforgiving the scrutiny.

I'm willing to give Tulsi some leeway on a few things -- Modi definitely, Izrul, and maybe one or two others of the thousand issues out there we could all nitpick. In the extremely unlikely event of her getting the nom then getting elected, she is extremely unlikely to announce the USofA is now officially a Hindu country with Hindu religious law by decree from the Oval.

I'm glad actually she met with Modi -- so did Obama, in the WH. One might reasonably disagree with some of her benign public statements about M (I would stipulate they exist but am too lazy to look them up right now), but in the current political climate, I'd much prefer she err on the side of giving Modi too much cred than taking the safe establishment and lefty-friendly default position of denouncing him harshly. We already have too many adversaries and enemies (we've mostly created by our own misdoings and harsh rhetoric) and I don't think it wise to add India to that list.

On Izrul, she's a mixed bag to be sure, like all the other candidates, but I detect some movement in recent years, overall and despite a recent non-binding vote, towards a less knee-jerk embrace of the hardline establishment position. In any case, the backlash from the Iz lobby would be fierce and unrelenting if she strayed too far off the reservation. Not even Bernie strays too far.

Re the War on Terror, I read her comments more as we need to consider jihadism still a threat and we should be combatting it smartly where we can -- as opposed to an endorsement of Junior's fake WoT which was used to disguise regime change and US hegemony efforts. Imo, she could be doing a better job of distinguishing these two things, because if she is firmly against our regime change activities of recent times, she cannot possibly be a backer of the type of WoT which creates the very regime change she rightly is against.

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 4:24pm

I think you and I

@wokkamile @wokkamile process the information based upon personal opinions or perhaps prejudices. (I mean that in the pre-judge sense.) There are some things that turn me off a candidate instantly. You compare, and make a great effort to accommodate before you reach your end.
And either way, nobody can accuse either of us for not being informed.
She will not be the candidate. I doubt she makes it to the primary ballot. We may just be wasting our time.
If she does anything positive, I give her kudos. I loved her smack down of Harris.
And that is pretty much it.
*edit for incomplete sentence

#1.1.1.1 any candidate's public record, we are bound to be disappointed, or worse, depending on how harsh and unforgiving the scrutiny. I'm willing to give Tulsi some leeway on a few things -- Modi definitely, Izrul, and maybe one or two others of the thousand issues out there we could all nitpick. In the extremely unlikely event of her getting the nom then getting elected, she is extremely unlikely to announce the USofA is now officially a Hindu country with Hindu religious law by decree from the Oval. I'm glad actually she met with Modi -- so did Obama, in the WH. One might reasonably disagree with some of her benign public statements about M (I would stipulate they exist but am too lazy to look them up right now), but in the current political climate, I'd much prefer she err on the side of giving Modi too much cred than taking the safe establishment and lefty-friendly default position of denouncing him harshly. We already have too many adversaries and enemies (we've mostly created by our own misdoings and harsh rhetoric) and I don't think it wise to add India to that list. On Izrul, she's a mixed bag to be sure, like all the other candidates, but I detect some movement in recent years, overall and despite a recent non-binding vote, towards a less knee-jerk embrace of the hardline establishment position. In any case, the backlash from the Iz lobby would be fierce and unrelenting if she strayed too far off the reservation. Not even Bernie strays too far. Re the War on Terror, I read her comments more as we need to consider jihadism still a threat and we should be combatting it smartly where we can -- as opposed to an endorsement of Junior's fake WoT which was used to disguise regime change and US hegemony efforts. Imo, she could be doing a better job of distinguishing these two things, because if she is firmly against our regime change activities of recent times, she cannot possibly be a backer of the type of WoT which creates the very regime change she rightly is against.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 10:09pm

As the only candidate

@on the cusp in the large field to make FP and anti-regime change wars the centerpiece of her candidacy, issues which are vitally, existentially important today, I was not going to do anything other than give her some space on a few other things and hope her voice, alone among the 20, can be heard long enough to make a difference.

So considering the issues involved and that she is the only one articulating them, I don't deem it a waste of my money throwing some pesos her way, even if the odds are greatly against her. And if Bernie should ever decide to take point with Tulsi on these issues, he would get considerably more of my modest support.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 4:02pm

lol..

@wokkamile

Tulsi is the epitome of the fake war of terror IMO. She willingly signed up to go fight people who had done nothing to us and if she hasn't figured that out yet I'm questioning her faculties. She only talks about her dead brothers and sisters, but says nothing for the millions of innocent civilians her brothers and sisters have killed in the bogus war. Yeah it's great that she is against more regime change, but I'd like her to be honest about why we are actually in so many countries.

I refused to vote for Obama and Herheinous because of their support for the military regime and because I think that they are war criminals so why would I consider voting for someone who is actively in the military? No matter what role she is in she still supports the military industrial complex.

#1.1.1.1 any candidate's public record, we are bound to be disappointed, or worse, depending on how harsh and unforgiving the scrutiny. I'm willing to give Tulsi some leeway on a few things -- Modi definitely, Izrul, and maybe one or two others of the thousand issues out there we could all nitpick. In the extremely unlikely event of her getting the nom then getting elected, she is extremely unlikely to announce the USofA is now officially a Hindu country with Hindu religious law by decree from the Oval. I'm glad actually she met with Modi -- so did Obama, in the WH. One might reasonably disagree with some of her benign public statements about M (I would stipulate they exist but am too lazy to look them up right now), but in the current political climate, I'd much prefer she err on the side of giving Modi too much cred than taking the safe establishment and lefty-friendly default position of denouncing him harshly. We already have too many adversaries and enemies (we've mostly created by our own misdoings and harsh rhetoric) and I don't think it wise to add India to that list. On Izrul, she's a mixed bag to be sure, like all the other candidates, but I detect some movement in recent years, overall and despite a recent non-binding vote, towards a less knee-jerk embrace of the hardline establishment position. In any case, the backlash from the Iz lobby would be fierce and unrelenting if she strayed too far off the reservation. Not even Bernie strays too far. Re the War on Terror, I read her comments more as we need to consider jihadism still a threat and we should be combatting it smartly where we can -- as opposed to an endorsement of Junior's fake WoT which was used to disguise regime change and US hegemony efforts. Imo, she could be doing a better job of distinguishing these two things, because if she is firmly against our regime change activities of recent times, she cannot possibly be a backer of the type of WoT which creates the very regime change she rightly is against.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by lotlizard on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 2:52am

Matt Taibbi / Rolling Stone: “Who’s afraid of Tulsi Gabbard?”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-ga...

“It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the [establishment’s] only response to the truth.”

On the underpublicized Hawaii nuclear scare of 2018, and how that motivated her to run for president:

Early on a Saturday morning, over a million people all across our state woke up to a warning that went out across cell phones, blaring on sirens, saying, “There’s a missile incoming. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.”

It was absolutely terrifying, terrifying, because we quickly came to realize there was no shelter. There was nowhere for our loved ones to go, and this is where we had kids on our University of Hawaii college campus sprinting in all directions. “Seek immediate shelter,” but where do you go?

As for the “you love Assad” smear by Harris’s national press chair:
If every debate about U.S. interventionism was about Godzilla instead

Person B: No matter how many Venezuelans I talk to, it will still be an indisputable fact that Godzilla rampages are always disastrous and always make things worse.

Person A: Why are you such a Maduro apologist?

Person B: What?!? I’m not a Maduro apologist! This has nothing to do with Maduro. I just remember what Godzilla is and the things he always does when we summon him up from the bottom of the sea to try and solve problems.

Person A: Look, I understand that Godzilla has made a mess of things in the past, that doesn’t mean you have to go around supporting Maduro.

Person B: I don’t support Maduro! Why do you always do this?? With Iraq you called me a Saddam apologist, with Libya you called me a Gaddafi supporter, with Syria I was an Assadist, and all I’m saying is that Godzilla is a giant nuclear monster that destroys everything in its path!

Person A: So I guess you just don’t care about the people of Venezuela then.

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 8:17am

nice article...

@lotlizard

Thanks for the link. I like Matt.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-ga... “It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the [establishment’s] only response to the truth.” On the underpublicized Hawaii nuclear scare of 2018, and how that motivated her to run for president: Early on a Saturday morning, over a million people all across our state woke up to a warning that went out across cell phones, blaring on sirens, saying, “There’s a missile incoming. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.” It was absolutely terrifying, terrifying, because we quickly came to realize there was no shelter. There was nowhere for our loved ones to go, and this is where we had kids on our University of Hawaii college campus sprinting in all directions. “Seek immediate shelter,” but where do you go? As for the “you love Assad” smear by Harris’s national press chair: If every debate about U.S. interventionism was about Godzilla instead Person B: No matter how many Venezuelans I talk to, it will still be an indisputable fact that Godzilla rampages are always disastrous and always make things worse. Person A: Why are you such a Maduro apologist? Person B: What?!? I’m not a Maduro apologist! This has nothing to do with Maduro. I just remember what Godzilla is and the things he always does when we summon him up from the bottom of the sea to try and solve problems. Person A: Look, I understand that Godzilla has made a mess of things in the past, that doesn’t mean you have to go around supporting Maduro. Person B: I don’t support Maduro! Why do you always do this?? With Iraq you called me a Saddam apologist, with Libya you called me a Gaddafi supporter, with Syria I was an Assadist, and all I’m saying is that Godzilla is a giant nuclear monster that destroys everything in its path! Person A: So I guess you just don’t care about the people of Venezuela then.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 6:23pm

Hey, Tulsi!

@lotlizard In a nuclear war, there is nowhere to go. Going to a building basement would help?

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-ga... “It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the [establishment’s] only response to the truth.” On the underpublicized Hawaii nuclear scare of 2018, and how that motivated her to run for president: Early on a Saturday morning, over a million people all across our state woke up to a warning that went out across cell phones, blaring on sirens, saying, “There’s a missile incoming. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.” It was absolutely terrifying, terrifying, because we quickly came to realize there was no shelter. There was nowhere for our loved ones to go, and this is where we had kids on our University of Hawaii college campus sprinting in all directions. “Seek immediate shelter,” but where do you go? As for the “you love Assad” smear by Harris’s national press chair: If every debate about U.S. interventionism was about Godzilla instead Person B: No matter how many Venezuelans I talk to, it will still be an indisputable fact that Godzilla rampages are always disastrous and always make things worse. Person A: Why are you such a Maduro apologist? Person B: What?!? I’m not a Maduro apologist! This has nothing to do with Maduro. I just remember what Godzilla is and the things he always does when we summon him up from the bottom of the sea to try and solve problems. Person A: Look, I understand that Godzilla has made a mess of things in the past, that doesn’t mean you have to go around supporting Maduro. Person B: I don’t support Maduro! Why do you always do this?? With Iraq you called me a Saddam apologist, with Libya you called me a Gaddafi supporter, with Syria I was an Assadist, and all I’m saying is that Godzilla is a giant nuclear monster that destroys everything in its path! Person A: So I guess you just don’t care about the people of Venezuela then.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Centaurea on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 7:31pm

That's exactly what Tulsi said

@on the cusp
in her closing statement in the second Dem debate. There is nowhere to go. In other words, Americans need to wake up and get out of denial.

In case of a nuclear strike, hiding in a basement would be about as helpful as doing duck-and-cover in a hallway. Even as an eight-year-old in 1962, I knew something was off about that idea.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 8:05pm

I was 10.

@Centaurea @Centaurea If she elaborated, good for her.
*I didn't watch the debates. I doubt I will in the future, either.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 9:55pm

If N. Korea

@on the cusp
launched a single fusion boosted fission weapon at Hawaii there would be plenty of places for most people on the island chain to go. The question, of course, is what happens next.

But TG's point was hardly a complaint about lack of civil defense. She was concerned that we'd reached a point that such a threat would be taken seriously.

Submitted by entrepreneur on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 8:13am

I would actually be ok with that IF she had qualified her

statement with respect to cheating or fraud. My disgust with Bernie's support of Hillary in 2016 was not that he supported her, but that he supported her after the massive fraud and cheating that was committed against him.

Being loyal is one thing, but being a fucking doormat for your cheating-ass opponent to scrape the dogshit off of their shoes is another thing entirely.

Submitted by Azazello on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 9:38am

I have to disagree with Tulsi on this.

America must stop being the world's police
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBLr3Ox78Tk width:500 height:300]
America is not the world's police. America is the world's mugger, the world's mass shooter, the world's smash-and-grab resource thief.

—

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

Submitted by on the cusp on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 2:36pm

One more thing

@Azazello I find I dislike about her.
Thanks. My list is getting longer!

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 11:03pm

Exact same thing Obama and Trump said,

@on the cusp "America must stop being the world's police". Verbatim. It's obfuscating propaganda. People have to read deeper than that.

Submitted by Centaurea on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 7:40pm

It's worse than that.

@Azazello
The US is the world's mugger, and it's doing the mugging while pretending that it's the world police.

Sociopathic, personality-disordered behavior, writ large upon the world stage.

I get the sense that Tulsi recognizes that fact, however.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 9:59pm

Why should . . .

@Centaurea
foreign countries get better American policing than we do?

Submitted by Centaurea on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 10:06pm

Yep

@FuturePassed

In fact, why should the world get so many better things than we do?

All the while, we are pretending that we are "exceptional".

We're exceptional, all right. Exceptionally traumatized, confused, and brainwashed.

"We're the greatest! We're so great, we don't need good things. We're too good to settle for good lives. We're so great, we can handle as much crap as possible. Bring it on!"

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by wokkamile on Sun, 08/11/2019 - 10:02pm

Agree, and she

@Centaurea probably has more choice words in private about what this country has been doing lately. It's just that she's running for president, and such language is too much.

It was controversial enough when MLK in '67 uttered roughly the same. Look at how he was treated thereafter. The MSM went after him. And of course consider how he ended up a year later. And he wasn't running for the top office in the land.