Tulsi at 63,434 Donors!!!

Only 1,566 new donors needed by May 15 to get her into the debates, which works out to 42 new donors per day needed.

Tulsi is on national guard duty this weekend.

See Here

Sorry for the short essay.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

I really appreciate your reports. I think Tulsi Gabbard has strength that goes beyond the kind of political campaigning that continues to be promoted by the mainstream media. She's concerned about foreign policy, and increasingly I think it becomes clear that everything else the politicians supposedly care about stems from our hideous foreign policy and our maniacal military spending. Immigration having to do with bad policies of arming dictatorships and assaulting sovereign countries with war, outsourcing manufacturing, dumping environmental toxins all over the world. We need a humane government.

up
0 users have voted.
EdMass's picture

I asked the campaign straitforward had they made the goal to the debate stage. They replied yes, as the copy of my email indicated.

Obviously a little excited about a record day of donations, I can forgive.

Should have left it to you for the real info.

Apologies for the diversion.

up
0 users have voted.

Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!

Firesign Theater

Stop the War!

@EdMass

I think they were probably so excited to have reached their quarterly funding goal that they misconstrued the question from you. They actually did reach their funding goal for the end of March, whereas their February funding was far below what they expected.

It's all good. I figure they should reach the donor goal for the debates in 2-5 days. Unfortunately, Tulsi doesn't have any campaign events scheduled, so she'll probably be getting in the low hundreds of new donors per day for the next few days at least.

up
0 users have voted.
movie buff's picture

Two tiny donations to Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel, to get them both on the debate stage. I haven't decided who I'll support yet, if anyone.

Tulsi Gabbard strikes me as a good candidate to lead a third party movement, IMO. The two-party system is obviously corrupt, necrotic, and unresponsive to anyone without blinders on, yet it's proved remarkably resilient, held together by a centrifugal force something akin to mutually-assured destruction. Nobody likes it, but it's impossible to break. Who can blow this thing wide open?

up
0 users have voted.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." --Noam Chomsky

Centaurea's picture

@movie buff

Tulsi Gabbard strikes me as a good candidate to lead a third party movement, IMO.

I'm supporting Tulsi, as well as Bernie and Mike Gravel. For some reason, I hadn't considered this as a possibility.

As far as I can tell, Bernie is wedded to the existing two-party system. He's an outsider to it, and knows its limitations, but has worked well within it for 35 years. That approach may not take us very far into the future, though.

Tulsi, on the other hand ... she has already demonstrated that she's willing and able to walk away from the Dem establishment when needed.

In his interview with Tulsi, Jimmy Dore asked her why she's running as a Dem instead of third party/independent. She said that she's doing what she needs to, where she thinks she needs to do it, in order to make the biggest difference. (I can't remember her exact phrasing, but that was the gist.)

If circumstances should change, now that you mention it, I think she has the strength and independence to turn away completely from the Dem party and move in a new direction.

up
0 users have voted.

"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

Lookout's picture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P93eXj0UolI (47 min)

and let me repost the link to the Kim Iversen interview (22 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ybH9p2uFiE

up
0 users have voted.

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

Pluto's Republic's picture

...will support the anti-war candidate over the warmonger candidate. The People are generally against war and against increased military spending. According to analysis I've read, this was one of the key factors that led to Hillary Clinton's defeat. Donald Trump positioned himself as the anti-war candidate.

The lesser of the two evils to American voters — who are given no real choices in Presidential elections when it comes to their overarching concerns — turns out to be the candidate who is the least likely to immediately jump into war and military expansion.

All else being secondary, the most anti-war candidate will always prevail.

up
0 users have voted.

represents for me is the shift between privileged families who can afford some college or decent public education, and thus totally avoid military service, and un-privileged families who have kids in the military who come home injured, disillusioned, and still unemployed, such that the shift has now gone to a majority un-privileged. At least that shift is significant enough to run the electoral college and the total disgust with the Parties. So I think she represents a larger and larger share of families struggling with the prospect of no home ownership, no healthcare affordability, and military service in what I think Gabbard describes as an unclear mission.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

"Tulsi strongly believes the United States and United Nations have a duty to defend the sovereignty of Ukraine from Russia. Russia's invasion, occupation, and further threats are an extreme danger to Ukrainian self determination.

H.Res.499 - Condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian Federation: A bill which addresses the Ukraine crisis and the responsibility of the United States and the United Nations to protect Ukrainian sovereignty and minority populations in Ukraine.
H.R.4278 - Ukraine Support Act: Voted in favor of the act which condemns the Russian annexation of Crimea, and imposes visa sanctions on those who have a direct or indirect involvement in the invasion of Ukraine."

https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-russia

up
0 users have voted.

@Big Al

Netanyahu yesterday said he would annex the West Bank. I suppose you'd be okay with that then, considering your stance on Russia annexing Crimea?

New York Times

This isn't meant as a slam--I actually agree with you. But there is more than one way to look at things. Russia, indeed, did something illegal and against international law by annexing Crimea. This is truth, and it should be condemned, because, if you don't, you essentially validate what Netanyahu is proposing.

Yes, Russia had good self-interest reasons for doing what it did. It didn't want the CIA-backed (neo-nazi-leaning) coup government of Ukraine making a play to get Ukraine into NATO. It didn't want to lose it's main Black Sea naval yard in the Crimea. And, yes, the population there is 70% Russian. If I were in Putin's place, I probably would have done the same.

Doesn't mean it should be applauded and not condemned (at least the way it happened). Tulsi has gone on ad nauseum about ending the new cold war and reducing nuclear weapons, and stopping regime-change wars and US/CIA interference in other countries. She's on the correct side of things. But sometimes you need to tell a country that you do not approve.

up
0 users have voted.
Deja's picture

@apenultimate
Not the same, as far as I am concerned.

up
0 users have voted.

@Deja

Russian soldiers went in late February and overthrew the local Crimean and Sebastopol governments. A vote was arranged and implemented 2 weeks later, which incidentally had no option to remain a part of Ukraine. Seems fair. (Not)

Sorry, don't agree.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@apenultimate

You think that if Russia overthrew the Mexican government and if this country had a long standing base there that we wouldn't have taken control of it? Having a US naval base on Russia's borders is a huge threat to them. We are already becoming a threat to Russia with our putting troops and military equipment into countries that border Russia. Same scenario applies here. This country wouldn't stand for any other to do that in Mexico or Canada.

Huge difference between Bibi annexing the West Bank and what Russia did with Crimea. The West Bank never belonged to Israel and it is breaking international law by building settlements there. It's also committing crimes against humanity by keeping the people there in prison and killing anyone they want. I don't think there is any comparison here.

up
0 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

gulfgal98's picture

@snoopydawg I admit that I am not well schooled on international affairs, so I could be wrong. But I agree with your assessment, snoopy.

We also should remember that the United States, operating under the NATO banner, has been aggressively expanding the NATO bases eastward up to the border of Russia. This is contrary to a 1990 promise made by the US to Russia in return for cooperation in the reunification of Germany.

It's therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. Boris Yeltsin, Dmitry Medvedev and Gorbachev himself protested through both public and private channels that U.S. leaders had violated the non-expansion arrangement. As NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia, protests turned to outright aggression and saber-rattling.

Russia has had a long standing warm water naval base on the Black Sea at Sevastopol in Crimea. If nothing more, the annexation of Crimea could be justified a defensive move by Russia in order to protect the Sevastopol naval base. (Note: to see the map referenced in the quote below, click on the link above.)

As the map below illustrates, Sevastopol is a strategically important base for Russia's naval fleet, in addition to being Russia's only warm water base. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a 1997 treaty with Ukraine allowed Russia to keep its Black Sea Fleet pretty much intact (with 15,000 personnel currently stationed) and lease the base at Sevastopol (extended to expire in 2042).

up
0 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"I am done with it all. Life is just a charade in which we are all unknowing pawns." ~gulfgal98

Big Al's picture

@gulfgal98 The people of Crimea voted to reunify with Russia, Russia did not annex Crimea, that is the false imperialist narrative perpetuated by the corporate media and the democratic party.
Just for the record. It's similar to continuing to call the war in Syria a "civil war", which was/is also a false imperialist narrative.

up
0 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@Big Al @Big Al (redacted last paragraph because it could have started a shitstorm)
and tried to replace each time the word Russia or Russians got used in there with America or Americans (meaning the US) and I found that almost all of her statements there would still be true if you changed the words.

In other words, for the voter it's a case you are f****d if you do and you are f****d if you don't. Any person would come to the conclusion it's not worth to fight over the issue then.

The discussions here get quite useless and are not helpful to unite and come to results that at least to some have meaning.

What I get out of this whole shebang is:

1. Bernie is bad because he hasn't use his being Jewish as a tool to show his courage to fight against Netanyahu and is silent and most foreign policy issues.
2. Tulsi is bad, because she sees something not too great about Putin and Russia when it comes to the Ukraine.
3. Obama was just a loser, because he betrayed too many black and working class white people.
4. They are all bad, because they go for the money.
5. Anyone who says here, he/she is confused and doesn't know a thing, is playing the role of over-self-deprecation fake guy/gal.

up
0 users have voted.
Big Al's picture

Russia did not "annex" Crimea or invade Ukraine, those are the imperialist lies that Gabbard, Sanders and the entire democratic party support. The people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to reunify with Russia. We've gone over that many times on this blog.
edit: meant as a reply above.

up
0 users have voted.

@Big Al

for the link to Gabbard's positions on Ukraine, about which I agree with you. She is wrong. You are right. But she is the only candidate in the field saying this at the same link:

Tulsi strongly opposes illegal C.I.A. funding, training and weapons for extremist rebels in Syria, who are fighting both the Syrian government and their ally of Russia. The U.S.’s illegal war to depose Assad in Syria brings the U.S. into direct conflict with Russia and simultaneously empowers extremists in Syria.

Continued U.S. military involvement in Syria can potentially escalate conflict between the U.S. and Russia, which is extremely dangerous and unnecessary.

It is this insight that garners support from people like me. She is military. She's a Democrat. She has opinions I don't share. But she sees the madness of playing Russian Roulette with nukes, which for some reason no one else running for president seems to see!

up
0 users have voted.