Tulsi Gabbard Makes Fourth (October) Debates!!!
Submitted by apenultimate on Tue, 09/24/2019 - 11:34am
The Monmouth New Hampshire poll came in today, and Tulsi got a high 2% in that qualifying poll.
This secures a spot in the October debates. Steyer has as well, meaning that 12 candidates will be in the debates. It is unknown whether they will split up the candidates over 2 days or have them all in 1 day at this point.
Pretty freakin' cool.
Edit to add: So, if you're a Tulsi supporter, what do you think her strategy should be for this debate? Go after Biden? Go after Warren? Destroy Bernie? (Just kidding with that last one.) Who would you differentiate yourself against?
Comments
I would like Tulsi
to call out EVERYONE for cowardice in the failure of everyone except for Bernie to oppose all of these wars.
This may be her last chance to get out her message.
Totally agree!
I am so happy to see Tulsi back in the debates! Her voice is sorely needed in the area of our failed foreign policy.
Tulsi has been the only candidate to show the courage to take on the MIC head on. Bernie mentions it, but not with the fervor Tulsi has. With out dismantling the power of the MIC, this country cannot move forward on climate change and a vibrant domestic agenda because of the enormous amount of money going down the back hole of regime change wars.
If Tulsi gets the chance, I hope she will also expose Warren's fauxgressiveness. No one has challenged Warren yet, and someone needs to do so before it is too late.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
True
Bernie gets a C-minus at best.
But every other candidate on the stage other than Tulsi gets a failing grade on the issue of wars.
She'll have only one or two times to get in her point, and then she'll be shut down.
She should make clear her stand, and then intentionally call the other candidates (besides Bernie) cowards.
Cowards for not fulfilling their constitutional duties. Cowards for not standing up for the lives of our soldiers. Cowards for not standing up to the MIC.
Use the word over and over again.
Then point out that 2/3rd of the discretionary budget is military-based, and quote Ike about how that spending hurts the poor.
From your keyboard
to Tulsi's ears. Excellent comment!
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Tulsi's perspective is interesting
She is absolutely not anti-military, since she has served in the military and still serves in the National Guard. She just doesn't want to see her fellow soldiers die in adventurist, imperialist wars and she is courageous enough to call bullshit on the US position (if there really is a coherent position) in Syria and elsewhere. A Gabbard Presidency would probably not result in a massive cutback of the military budget, but it might result in a more militarily sensible budget and definitely would result in a less imperialistic foreign policy.
Tulsi on Saudi Arabia and Iran and the DNC
First off she talks about how she feels about impeaching Trump. Then on our military defending the Saudis. She says though that Iran is a huge sponsor of terrorism. She finishes it off with the DNC shenanigans.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
Tulsi has a video . . .
claiming that savings from regime change wars could be used to fund the deteriorating infrastructure, the Green New Deal and a number of other things.
Bernie may get a C-minus in talking,
but his actions are A+. Since Tulsi was elected, Bernie has voted NO on every Pentagon budget. Tulsi voted for the budget (NDAA) in 2015 - twice (overriding Obama’s veto). And when sanctions (which are, for the U.S., often a prelude to a shooting war) on Russia, Iran, and North Korea were strengthened in 2017, Tulsi voted yes. Bernie voted no.
I still don’t understand her NDAA votes in 2015. The sanctions vote, which got only 3 no votes in the House, and 2 in the Senate, are perhaps more forgivable, but I think they indicate at the least an incomplete grasp of the situation.
Warren.
Assuming they're both on the same night, if I'm Tulsi I look to take Warren down a peg on FP.
I'd also watch out for Kamala because she'll be locked and loaded and looking for payback.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It may be two debates with candidates split up
. . . 6 and 6 coz it looks like Tom Steyer qualified, too.
Predictions:
Night 1:
Bernie, Biden, Yang, Steyer, Castro, Klobuchar
Because billionaires want a clean shot at Bernie. A chastened Castro apologizes to Biden.
Night 2:
Tulsi, Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, Booker, Beto
Everybody who fell asleep during the first night wakes up with a jolt as Tulsi goes after Warren and Harris goes after Tulsi. Mayor Pete gets run over trying to play peacemaker (again).
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Well it wouldn't
make too much sense for Tulsi to shoot again at an opponent who is busy falling into the abyss. And it might make Tulsi seem like a Kamala stalker.
If she's on the night with Biden, he is the obvious target for her. Or with Warren, she could go after her on her big money contributions problem.
Tulsi needs to aim high, not at 2d and 3d tier candidates, and change her target.
?
Warren is a 2d or 3d tier candidate?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
No she's not
and I said there is an opening or two for Tulsi directing some fire at Warren.
Just avoid attacking Harris again, and Mayor Pete, Cory, Amy and Andrew.
Can't imagine she would go after Bernie.
When did I say....
Tulsi should go after Harris?
EDIT: Oh I see....
A comma after 'Warren' might help clear up the confusion.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Tulsi tells Biden to drop out!!
If she's on with Biden he should be the target! Telling him to drop out would hit the news cycle perfectly - cause it's gonna' happen with or without Tulsi, but it would be nice if she gives him a little shove...
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
If it works out like that, Tulsi will have an abundance of
targets. Warren, Harris, Booker, and O’Rourke are all supporters of the military empire. Warren votes for the Pentagon budget 2/3 of the time, while the others ALWAYS vote for it. (At least through 2018; I don’t remember their 2019 votes).
And she should point out that Biden and Klobuchar are just the same, while highlighting Bernie’s record of consistent NO votes.
True, but an abundance of targets...
can also be interpreted as an abundance of incoming fire.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I would like her to focus on her own thoughts
about eternal war and the effect that it has on our society.
She'll get about 15 seconds....
and then George Snuffleuppagus will say, "Your time is up. I now want to turn to Tom Steyer and ask how Billionaires can be more awesome."
But yeah, that would be nice to hear.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I don't want to see her pre
I don't want to see her pre-target any candidate, but she will probably have all their records available for a take-down. I hope they talk about Mideast foreign policy and Venezuela.
Progressive, Independent, Gnostic, Vermonter.
If they don’t, she needs to.
@tle
Of course she will bring them up, but she won't harshly go for a take-down unless one of the other candidates says something really stupid (a likely occurance).
Progressive, Independent, Gnostic, Vermonter.
Even though Warren needs an honest, logical takedown
of the sort that Tulsi can deliver masterfully, at this point anything directly confrontational could bring heavy repercussions onto Tulsi, and although we know she can take it, she needs to maintain her likability and a kind of alibi should she get a reputation for negative attacks. Also, if they split it into two nights, they would probably separate Tulsi from Warren. So I like @Shahryar's suggestion that Tulsi keep it focused on foreign policy with an emphasis on war and peace and how they affect people's lives However, she might be able to get away with a few words about Bernie as the original/real tried-and-true defender of the non-elite, maybe cite his long record and the fact that he, like she, will not take corporate money in the General, as one's big donors almost always end up being one's owners. This highlights an important difference between Bernie and Elizabeth.
While writing this it occurred to me that if they do split it into two nights, the DNC might schedule the Tulsi-containing group on the first night just to give Warren a comeback. Also,if they put Tulsi and Kamala on the same night, I hope Tulsi will be prepared for verbal assault.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl
Generally agree
on your first comments. There is a risk in being too much in attack mode. But Tulsi did it successfully vs Harris with no blowback (and not much gain in the polls either).
And the problem with hitting Warren too hard with a direct attack is that EW is also perceived as likable. And perhaps the problem of one woman, Tulsi, trying to destroy the candidacy of the leading woman candidate. Not being a woman myself, I dunno how that shakes out.
Re Tulsi talking FP, I think first she would need to go after the debate process itself, the various media outlets, for not making it much of the discussion in 3 debates/7 hours so far. She needs to find a way to get the public to understand they need to be more interested in this area. Polls show FP is well down the list of issues that are driving voters. Calling out the media loudly for not talking about it in debates while talking up regime change wars on their regular programs might be one way.
Perhaps you didn't get the memo?
This year, Progressives do not play nice with Corporatists.
But a big gain in new donors, which at this stage is far more important than any of Nate Silver's rigged polls or media tutting over how Tulsi doesn't adhere to establishment narratives such as 'likeability'.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Bernie has been
playing nice with the corporatists.
So far.
How long can he keep that up as he watches Liz rise in the polls and sees some of his support go to her?
You are all over the place.
Upthread you say Tulsi should go after Warren to punch upwards. In this chain you say Tulsi should not go after Warren because that will make her less likeable, but that Bernie should go after Warren.
I can't keep all your positions straight .
Sounds to me like what you really want is for Gabbard to lay off Warren because you're afraid Tulsi will actually damage Liz, but that you want Bernie to attack Warren so she can play the victim, siphon support, and reduce Bernie's 'likeability'.
Do I have that right?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
No you don't
but it seems you are maybe being a little inclined to misconstrue and distort my comments.
I merely indicated that there is risk going after someone as likable as Liz - - but never said she isn't fair game. I noted, for instance, her dubious position on accepting big money donations as one avenue of attack. The attack, or challenge, can be made against her -- it just needs to be done carefully.
What is confusing about that? Just a dollop of nuance to digest.
Bernie? I don't believe I said he should target Liz. His first and only target should be Biden. It is time for Bernie to take the gloves off and start targeting his "very good friend Joe". If he wants to win the nomination. It would be a juicy target, again if done right and not as a direct slam at his obvious mental decline, and has the additional benefit of potentially reaching and pulling away many of the same types of voters that both candidates currently claim. He needs those Biden voters. The WWC and the AAs. Liz has a different, wine-track constituency.
Clear enough? Bernie attack Joe, period. Tulsi could go after Liz or Biden -- no lightweight candidates.
She might point out that if we insist on throwing
...half our tax dollars down the black hole of wars — with nothing to show for it but staggering debt piled upon the backs of our children — then we cannot create the kind of nation at home that we deserve. As a result, we have not been able to produce a healthy, educated, economically secure, and mentally sound population that the nation needs to meet the challenges of the future.
She might point out that there is an ideal balance between a realistic threshold of national security and our own sense of well-being and economic security as individuals. We must establish priorities that are sane and comprehensive, and that lead to a greater good, both at home and in our relationships with the rest of the world. She could promise to lead us to the proper balance by initiating a national conversation about the future we want to create for ourselves. What that looks like.
She might point out that the time has come when we must define for ourselves our goals as a people and our goals for the nation. In the past, we have allowed ourselves to be pushed here, and tricked there, into pursuits of tangled and risky and secretive international goals that are not of our own making. In fact, they are beyond the time frame of our normal electoral cycles. Yet, when things go wrong, it is we the people who suffer the consequences and hardships — not the instigators and puppet masters. This has created an atmosphere of resentment and division and disenfranchisement among the people. She might promise to empower us to set our own national goals that reflect our own hearts and minds.
Carry a burning candle and share the light.
.
Sounds like
a decent opening statement. All that will take a minute or so to express.
But I'm still skeptical the proper foundation hasn't been laid yet for getting people's attention on FP and defense spending. That's a start, but it's also a lot of lofty rhetoric and logic that the folks in the hinterlands may not be tuned in to process.
Tulsi may or might or should
speak up for the rest of us. And will be promptly squished for her efforts by the MSMPTB INC. Who of the other clowns on the stage will speak up for us? Nobody. 'Cept maybe Bernie? WTF, over. Getting tired of this shit show already.
Otherwise, things are almost cool.
question everything
Actually,
much of what you posted is very similar to what our Peace vigil talked about when we met people who stopped by. It is also a great part of what Tulsi has emphasized in her campaign speeches. She also talks about how these regime change wars have made us less safe here at home.
I think a lot of people do not understand the nuances of what Tulsi is saying. My personal interpretation of what she has been saying on the campaign trail is that we should consider our military as a defense, not a tool of imperialism.
I have seen people critical of Tulsi because she does not go far enough and that is a valid criticism. However, no other candidate, including Bernie whom I love, has had the courage to challenge the military industrial complex for what it really is. Tulsi has done that and that is why I support getting her message out.
Outstanding comment!
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
There's a flux
...located between a candidate's core moral view of humanity and their willingness to evolve their views to the desires of the people.
Sometimes I want their core moral view to be unwavering — particularly in matters of war and savagery. If I voted for that, that's what I want.
At other times, I want their core views to evolve — especially in social matters like same sex marriage and the extending of other human rights. Lack of brain plasticity infuriates me.
I often think of your Peace Vigil and the conversations you've described.
Most of the Democratic candidates need to evolve in certain areas where they are lacking. Most of them will say things they think will get them elected. Some of them have changed their narrative right before our eyes. It could be sincere. My focused is on whether or not their core values will hold true, or whether they will bend in the wrong places for the wrong reasons. Case in point, Barack Obama.
I'm not real worried about Bernie Sanders as a candidate. I trust that he will avoid harming people at all costs.
The rest of the candidates remaining have two sides: one for the people and one for important and influential persons that represent the complex system of civilization. They needed two narratives to get on that stage. All of them want to bring opposing sides together to consolidate power, and they are positioning themselves to do so. To everyone it seems like the nation has never been more divided — but that divisiveness can only be fixed by correcting what is actually causing it: The Wealth Gap; economic inequality; severe austerity; debt stress; financial insecurity, and looming scarcity. There is no other outside cause dividing America .
Only a few of the candidates are trying to solve the real problem. Andrew Yang is a good example of a candidate who can see the problem. It comes from unregulated human greed, which is killing capitalism, In turn, the military industry is the engine that is powering the monstrosity that is asset stripping the world's natural resources and our nation's future. War has always emerged from greed, and the greedy have always profited from it. But this time, that old menacing cycle is killing the planet.
These candidates surely must know they cannot solve the real problem without slashing the military-industry insanity that is powering it. Our media will do anything to hide this reality from the people. Some of the candidates appear to have that kind of clarity, but few of them are willing to say the words that express it directly. The rare voice with the courage to address it is coming from an iconic Joan of Arc figure, Tulsi Gabbard. ...Such things have worked in the past.
To me, everything else is just noise.
Carry a burning candle and share the light.
.
Wow, just wow!
What a terrific comment! Your thoughts and words are deeper than mine, so I often have to read your comments more than once to fully digest them. This is at the core of what is wrong here in the US and you perfectly distilled it into two sentences.
Some people understood it from the beginning, like Bernie. Others like myself had to learn from our own life experiences due to how we were raised. I am one of those who has significantly evolved over my lifetime as a result of my own life experiences. I believe this to be the case with Tulsi also.
The bottom line is that to go against the prevailing narrative does take courage. For some of us like myself, the risk does not take a lot of courage, but for others like Bernie and Tulsi, it does.
Thank you for this wonderful comment. It brought tears to my eyes because it brought me hope.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
The next debate
is Oct 15-16, assuming 2 nights. 3 weeks from now the Dem decision on whether to launch into impeachment waters will have been made, and if they go forward there will be plenty of questions on this issue, possibly drowning out any attempt at a discussion on FP.
Tulsi is against impeachment, saying it would be "too divisive". I disagree with her on this. Especially if this latest story re Ukraine (which I am evaluating) is fleshed out with more incriminating evidence in the next few weeks. Impeachment is in the Constitution for a reason, and Congress would be shirking its duty not to hold Donald accountable for a range of HC&Ms. It should always be about more than just politics, and not holding him accountable only emboldens Trump.
Bernie is now apparently getting more interested in an impeachment inquiry. Warren has been ahead of him on calling for impeachment.
The practical consequence of impeachment hearings
is that they would help Trump just as the Clinton impeachment hearings helped Clinton's popularity. Although the Russia stuff is BS and the Ukraine stuff is reprehensible (but par for the course in DC), Trump has certainly violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution and probably obstructed justice as well. However, the current crew of establishment Democrats can be reliably counted on to screw up any impeachment inquiry, giving Trump and the Republicans lots of talking points, and if Trump were impeached the Senate trial would find him innocent and provide him with lots more talking points coming into the 2020 election.
Agree on all counts.
Not to mention that Impeachment also diverts attention from a discussion of Progressive issues, which is another big reason establishment Dems keep pushing it so hard.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Isn't it
the establishment Ds -- if by that you mean mainly centrist/center-left Pelosi/Schumer/Hoyer types -- who have been resisting impeachment? It's been many progressives leading the charge for it.
Like who?
I suspect you and I have a fairly different idea of who is Progressive.
Regardless, a year out from election day, Impeachment is a counter productive move.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
AOC of course
A major name in the party these days. And progressives at the grassroots. No major name of a Dem from the moderate wing of the party for impeachment comes to mind.
It's generally been observed (sorry, don't have time to find you a history of the call for impeachment) that it's been progressives leading the way.
Were you under the impression that moderates were leading the charge? The Dem leadership and big names -- almost all are not progressives, starting with Pelosi, including Hoyer and Clyburn, Schiff. Schumer. All have so far resisted an impeachment process.
For the record...
I do not consider AOC to be a Progressive, but rather an Incrementalist spokesmodel pretending to be a Progressive.
Anybody else?
Please don't say Nadler.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Jesus Harold Christ
On Rubber Crutches -- AOC not a progressive???
Clearly she is, and on this one about 99.9% of the politically-informed public living in our particular time-space continuum would agree with me, no debate.
And if we can't agree or come close to agreeing on this simple one ...
I used to get exactly that same reaction...
when I said similar things about Obama way back in 2006. Flustered incredulity wasn't much of a reply then. Still isn't.
But come on. Stop filibustering. You said 'many Progressives' have been pushing Impeachment. Who else?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
No filibustering
but also no point in bringing up other progressives as they are likely to be considered fauxgressives by you, so please forgive me if I don't waste any more time on this discussion.
Probably....
Any politician who would rather spend the bulk of this election cycle talking about Trump than about the critically important substantive issues facing us is pretty much a standard fauxgressive in my book.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Count me in on this
AOC has been hit and miss on being a progressive. On foreign policy I haven't seen anything but her going along with the gang of warmongers. It's the same collumdum as Bernie. You have to cut the military budget if you want domestic policies to succeed. Anyone know how she voted on it?
She went with the flow on Venezuela. Haven't heard anything from her on Assange and Manning. No idea where she stands on Iran and sending troops to Saudi Arabia. Syria? Heh..has she endorsed Bernie yet? This would help her make her bonafides of being a progressive in my book.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
I really really loathe the term progressive
Every day I loathe it more, almost as much as "surging."
Don't loathe the term.
Loathe the corporatists trying to co opt it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
absolutely
the heavies in the 'ganda dept' can change the meaning of any label within a day. Squish twitter and trends. Call it liberal, gets co-opted to mean negative things. Try progressive, neocons suck the life out of it by fake copies. Backed by the major media magicians. Polls will indicate a majority. Even if no one believes.
Rational thought in some s.capes.
question everything
I'd prefer to let the dead bury the dead
Robert M. La Follette was a Progressive. Tom Watson was a Populist.
Nowadaze, even Trump is described as a populist, Clinton a progressive.
Gimme that old time political spectrum developed during the French Revolution.
Left, Centrist, Right.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBtSFhbxBTg]
Understand your
perspective, but feel sometimes we have to put political concerns aside and defend democracy. And the time is never right it seems for Dems to do impeachment (recall 1987 and Reagan and 2007 and Bush) or anything else of a big ticket nature because such and such might happen, it might rile up the Repubs, it can't lead to a conviction so why bother, etc etc.
It's a wonder Dems decide to get out of bed in the morning considering all the bad things that could happen to them in a given day.
As for this one, it's not about private (Clinton) conduct, so I wonder about any political backlash, especially if, an important if, the Dems lay out the evidence and explain it to people, give them time to come along and help the process along. The evidence must be exposed to daylight and explained why it's a HC&M. No hearsay, as with R-gate, just solid evidence good to go in a court of law.
I do remember W-gate, when Ds did it right, so it can't be said Ds always screw up. Not always.
1970's Dems
(and Republicans for that matter) were very different from the ass clowns we have in power now. They had their problems, but some of them had principles and defended the constitution. They were also smarter. The current crop of Dems will try to make cheap political points and in doing so will end up helping Trump. I thought, for example, that the Dems completely blew the Kavanaugh hearings. There was clear evidence that he had lied to Congress and that was absolutely enough to disqualify him from the Supreme Court. The Dems instead focused on sexual harassment for political reasons and it became a he-said she-said contest and we have yet another asshole in the Supreme Court. Give me a thoughtful, Democratic Congress and Senate and I will fully back impeachment hearings.
I don't disagree
But it is essential that we recognize how hypocritical and twisted this accusation is. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton each entered into compromised and personally enriching collusion with deeply corrupt leaders from the Ukraine cartel. Each of their schemes were unethical or illegal in nearly the same ways. For this reason, there is a likelihood for a boomerang effect with unknown consequences. Much like the Mueller Fiasco that nobody wants to talk about anymore.
Nonetheless, I believe pursuing the impeachment gambit now is probably worth the risk, despite the flagrant desperation in using this particular "crime." It's the only opportunity we have to get rid of President Pence. Thus, it must be finished before the election.
Carry a burning candle and share the light.
.
Impeachment
Regardless of the intent of the Founders, impeachment is a political act. For it to be a net positive with the voters it has to make sense to them.
Clinton's impeachment, while technically accurate (perjury is a crime), did not resonate with the public. When called upon to testify about cheating on your spouse, how would you act? It was too easy to be sympathetic with him, and it had nothing to do with doing his job. It seemed like a witch hunt (to coin a phrase).
The Mueller case was muddy. I think there is legitimate case for impeachment on obstruction and emoluments, but that doesn't capture the attention of voters.
This thing is different, which is why we're seeing some different performances from politicians. It sounds bad. The President withholds aid money then leans on a foreign leader to provide dirt on his likely opponent. That's understandable to the casual TV viewer, seems wrong (is there actually a law that covers this?), and is clearly job related. It's not going to convince the Trump cultists, but they're not the target voters here.
The goal isn't to remove Trump from office. McConnell will not allow this to come up for a vote, period, and you would never convince enough Republican Senators to flip anyway. The goal is to have a steady stream of news making Trump look bad, to show Democratic voters that they are acting on impeachment, and then to deliver articles of impeachment about November 1st next year. It won't matter what McConnell does at that point, it will just boost Democratic turnout.
"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
100% agreed
my SO is someone who keeps up hope that Trump’s impeachment is going to happen any day now and I keep trying to explain to her that its only going to happen if it makes political gains for the Dems. It’s 100% a political process and as what happened with Clinton the first, it can backfire. The Dems are stupid about a lot of things, but I think this is something they get.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Trump's having a field day with this . . .
Win-Win
Biden doesn't represent the Democrats unless he wins the nomination. Forcing Trump's hand makes him start campaigning against Biden now instead of waiting until he's got enough delegates to win the nomination. Knock down Biden's support, maybe he drops out before the voting starts. The impeachment hearings can grind on.
"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
If Biden goes down, does Warren or Bernie go up?
I know that earlier polls indicated that Bernie was by far Biden voters' number two choice.
I hope that's still the case but I'm not so sure.
I was happy to see those early polls but it confounded me that two guys so ideologically different to each other as it gets in the Democratic Party were so linked.
For what it's worth, I think Biden is less militaristically inclined than Warren whose most significant take on fending off climate catastrophe is greening the military.
Nobody told me there'd be days like these:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuuhsqA95iA]
All we can be sure of
is that the Biden supporters will eventually go somewhere. The theory about that somewhere being Sanders is due to name recognition rather than ideology. So far that's the only data we have. Could some other centrist candidate's campaign be revived with in infusion of Biden supporters? Maybe, or maybe they go with one of the two remaining leaders, or they stay uncommitted for a while. We could go into Iowa with undecided being the leader.
"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
Nah . . .
Going after Trump would be an epic mistake in my opinion. Tulsi's biggest strategic strength is her ability to appeal to independents, Republicans, and left-leaning Democrats. Going up against Trump (and not having other talking points) is what lost the Democrats the election last time (among other things).
If asked about recent events, if I were Tulsi, I'd just say "We'll see where the evidence and system leads." or something equally innocuous.
She *can* rip on Trump, but for his policies not leading to the ends his voters wanted. It might be best to hit him on his ineffectiveness in office. Don't focus on the Democratic witchhunt (regardless of whether it is valid or not).
She hit Kamala on what she had done policy-wise. That's why Tulsi took so little flak for it. Do the same with Trump or anyone else.
BREAKING NEWS
Pelosi just announced Dems will begin formal impeachment inquiry, per CBS.
Even the moderates are coming on board, creating much more party unity on the question.
Going after Trump needs to be about more than just policy disagreements if the guy is acting in impeachable and illegal ways. Dems won't be able to tiptoe around it after a while. Investigate, yes. And get going on it. Show the evidence and explain it to the public, yes.
For some, maybe like Bernie, don't let public statements get too far ahead of the evidence -- totally understandable.
I'm a bit disappointed Tulsi doesn't understand the importance of upholding the Constitution, that that takes priority over all else, and it's too important to wait for the next election. Otherwise, it's effectively a writing-out of the impeachment clause.
Impeachment on what grounds?
The whistleblower hasn't even testified yet nor has Trump released the transcripts. So how does anyone even know if he did anything wrong? This has kabuki theater all over it. And a huge waste of time. Democrats are putting their cart before the horse.
The senate just passed a non binding resolution to get the transcripts. More kabuki. If Trump says no what will the senate do then? "Oh well we tried."
There are other issues that Trump could be impeached for, but since congress is complicit in them too it ain't going to happen. This is why Pelosi didn't impeach Bush for torture. She knew about it for years before it got out and did nothing to stop it.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
It's a decision to divert from real issues
. . . the issues addressing working class needs that Bernie has been pushing to the forefront.
Right, snoopydawg
And this phony impeachment just makes Trump look like a martyr to independents.
I wonder if that is not the intent. DNC would rather have Trump win re-election than have Sanders, Warren, or Gabbard become President.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Bernie doesn't
seem to agree with you.
In another tweet, Bernie refers to Trump as
My point still stands IMO
Appears to have done something wrong is not evidence that he did. And I asked Bernie how selling weapons to Ukraine is designed to protect the USA? Obama stopped at selling weapons to them because he thought it would increase the tensions between us and Russia. Further stepping on the bear's foot is just going to piss off the bear. I think he went far enough when he overthrew the Ukraine government that had good relations with Russia.
Bernie knows that we are sending troops and military equipment into countries that border Russia and even installing missiles in some of them. Russia is threatening to put missiles in Cuba again which would be very bad. So again I'd like to know how arming Ukraine makes us safer. And Bernie believes that Russia helped put Trump in office and that Vlad has something over him. The Mueller report cleared Russia of interfering with the election. No votes were changed and the 12 men who supposedly hacked the DNC computers had no ties to the Russian government. A judge told Mueller that he had no proof of that and to stop saying it.
Bernie also calls Madura a dictator and says that he needs to hold fair elections. He isn't and he did. So forgive me for not going along with what Bernie is saying. His foreign policy has always been a problem for me.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
Bernie is not omniscient
He's not God. Just a man. FDR made some wrong decisions too.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
It seems Dems are focusing just on Trump and Ukraine talks
And they never saw any transcript which Trump now says he's releasing tomorrow.
Yea, either they are extremely stupid or they've decided to shove the shiv into Biden by handing him to Trump on a silver platter.
You might be on to something!
Senile Grandpa Joe may be becoming a liability. How much better for Trump to do the deed than to drive the knife in themselves. I don't actually think they're clever enough to set this up, but when presented with an opportunity they may be inclined to take it.
"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
Right on.
And if there's one thing the Dem establishment knows how to do, it's lose elections.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Lol
The Dems might have just handed Trump a second term by impeaching him. The overwhelming mood of the country right now is anti-establishment (throw the bums out). They just made Trump the ultimate definition of the anti-establishment candidate.
Oh, well.
I don't think this will play out the way you think it will play out. There are not enough non-Republican votes in congress to actually convict Trump. He'll be remaining. The Dems will now have to own this during the election, and I think the net result will hurt. Not even sure Tusli (the bridge-maker between sides) will be able to overcome this in the short-term.
I said nothing
about chances of conviction in the senate. Far too early to speculate about that. The inquiry needs to proceed then if there is the evidence on at least one count of impeachment then it goes to the Judiciary Committee for a vote, then the full House. Lots of steps to go before the senate.
But if there is solid evidence to show the public of impeachable offenses, even pre-Ukraine and non-R-gate, then it's going to be the Rs who will own it if they vote to acquit. Let them defend the indefensible.
In any case, this thing has just started. Michael Tracey today made a good point which I find probably sounder than my take above, which is no one at this stage can be certain how this will play out politically. I just don't think we have a choice about acting now to uphold the Constitution. Trump forced Pelosi's hand.
Btw, with all that said, I'm reminded of how Ds got panicky after the Mueller Report was released, with lefty pundits fretting that Dems had just handed Trump another 4 yrs. Within a few months however, the pundits were talking about how his re-elect prospects didn't look too promising, which is still the case today.
But that's the thing . . .
Sure, I'd love to take the right road, but from a strategic standpoint, it's stupid.
1. Why start a war you can't win? No smart general would do that. It's almost impossible for Trump to be convicted. (Did Clinton's impeachment hurt him?)
2. The reason for impeachment is a boring topic--it won't get people up in arms. It's not an emotional topic.
3. When he doesn't get convicted, the Democrats will look powerless and flaccid again. Trump will be a *winner*.
4. It will engergize Trump's base.
You're right, it's probably the right thing to do--except that all the presidents in recent memory should have been impeached for war crimes, shady financials, and violations of the protections in the Constitution multiple times and it never happened. I think your comment about upholding the Constitution is a few decades late.
Never fight a fight you have no hope of winning (unless there's just no alternative). It wastes your energy and makes you look bad. That's the end result.
I hope I'm wrong.
I'll try again
on your 1) there can be a real "winning" even if Rs continue to act in lockstep in the senate to protect their Fearless Leader, although it's way too early to predict on that. Ds should lay out the case, and make it clear and understandable to the people, and then let the Rs try to defend what are clear HC&Ms. Hang impeachable offenses around their necks in 2020 and see how they squirm. The D base would be energized, rallying around a popular issue that goes beyond the benign usual policy differences debates.
2) (see above) Au contraire. Impeachment gets even non-political types' juices flowing. The last two times, it was highly emotional -- Nixon in 74 and Clinton in 98. The public tuned in -- much more for Nixon of course, that was about actual substance, real HC&Ms; less so in the case of Clinton's private shenanigans, which the public fairly quickly realized was not the stuff impeachment was meant to address.
3) Ds were looking powerless and weak when Pelosi was sitting on her hands on impeachment, allowing Trump to feel he was above the law. AOC wasn't far off when she said the biggest crime before yesterday wasn't Trump's misdeeds but the Ds pathetically weak dithering.
4) We've got to stop worrying about the reaction of Trump's base. It gives Ds an excuse to never act boldly, on anything. And again, impeachment, properly done and presented, would likely galvanize the D base. Even indies might wake up and applaud how the Ds are finally showing some toughness.
On the rest, yes previous Ps have stepped over the line with impunity. That should be no excuse for continuing to not hold them accountable.
And as the saying goes, it's never too late to do the right thing.
Who was that southern pol?
Who coined the phrase "unless he's caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy?"
That's what the public understands, not esoteric points of law.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Edwin Edwards
former governor of Louisiana said it in 1983-
"the only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught with a ..."
Quite a character. Thanks for the memory jog.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards
Yes, sounds like Louisiana
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I wouldn't put it past the
I wouldn't put it past the DNC to put the top six per their polls on the first night, and the back six on the next night.
Progressive, Independent, Gnostic, Vermonter.
too plausible to be dismissed
I hate 'em
Liz explains democracy
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
No chance Tulsi and Warren / Biden on same stage
The DNC is going to bundle Tulsi up with Bernie / Yang / and the rest of less contentious candidates. Even if she is not on stage with Biden or Warren she needs to call out Biden's shady dealings and tell him to drop out and call out Warren for taking big corp. money!! GO TULSI!! Knock out Booker like the fake he is!
Happy happy!!
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