Tulsi Gabbard Best Democrat in the Field
.
Hawaii Congresswoman and Iraq War Veteran Tulsi Gabbard is getting very, very close now to qualifying for inclusion into the 2020 Democratic Primary Debates.
____________
I had followed Bernie's campaign very closely back in 2015-2016, but I became disillusioned later on with Sander's strange and contradictory rush to submit to and promote Hillary Clinton (“crooked Hillary”) right after the Primaries. It seems to me that if he was serious about changing the paradigm -- that he could have instead gone to the Convention and walked out of that building with half of the people there following right behind him, and then joined forces with Jill Stein to create -- a large Independent movement to challenge the corrupt two-party system.
Also, his lack of outrage and happy acceptance of the DNC-Hillary-DebbieWSchultz-Podesta Theft of many of the Primary states (as many as 13) is very puzzling. Why does he want to see that behavior held unaccountable(?), and protect Clinton and DWS? Since that time, Sanders has been totally duped by phoniness of both the phony Russia-Gate nonsense and "Identity Politics" narratives, while also buying into to the Open Borders insanity.
----
So for 2020, the most inspiring, impressive, and best candidate in the race this time around hands down is Tulsi Gabbard. Unlike everyone else she really speaks to and understands first hand the corrupt forces around U.S. Foreign Policy, and has both the deep education level and sense of core principle to not ever submit to these policies -- like perhaps nobody else that has ever run for the Office. Here is a quick clip of Tulsi.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3sAwXZPafc width:640 height:480]
--
She could be the transformational President that we need, and we can be sure that the Neocon, Globalist Foreign Policy is dead if Tulsi Gabbard is the Democratic Nominee. And with Tulsi Gabbard you can be sure that she will not ever go around touring the Country on private Jets promoting crooks like the Clintons if she loses.
These are the reasons why the political establishment does not like her. Already, she has had to fight back some smears and attacks. But she does so with impressive class and poise.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpe79LfhUZU width:640 height:480]
----
Right now Tulsi Gabbard is less than 2000 donations way from qualifying in the Democratic Primary debates, where she will then have the public forum to give voice to the truth and shame all the other candidates on the stage (especially Joe Biden).
Just think how much more interesting the Democratic Debates will be with her voice on that stage...
You can contribute here to put Tulsi over the top:
- Donate: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/65k-march?refcode=tw190331
- Donate: https://www.tulsi2020.com
--
Commander-In-Chief with a New U.S. Foreign Policy
Comments
Sorry to make this the first comment.
Here is the article itself. It isn't old history they are pointing out.
Tulsi Gabbard’s Deceptive Foreign Policy
The Hawaii congresswoman’s anti-interventionism masks an affinity for authoritarians, nationalists, and Islamophobes.
By Evan HillTwitter
https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-president-foreign-islam/
Let me just add that while I still support Bernie over the rest, he is pissing me off. Ro posted some unclear piece about Bernie "won't attack the Democrats running against him". If he means won't swing first, fine. If it means Bernie won't hit back, not fine. I think Bernie winning for his $20 dollar donors should come before protecting his colleagues. I the Dem Party doesn't like it, Bernie can run third party. Bernie also posted some bull shit tweet about Russia interfering in our elections way beyond any obligatory point to do so. So whatever I do or don't do in support of Bernie, I do with eyes wide open. For this reason, I am posting the Tulsi article here. Make of it whatever you will.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Hi, DK! Hey, early on, Bernie asked his supporters
not to attack other Dems, etc.--no 'bullying or harassment.' Could be wrong, but, figure that he'll do a version of his "damn emails" comment, if any debate host dares ask him about Uncle Joe's escapades regarding to feeling off women and children (if Joe enters the race, that is). He also said as much, in the recent CNN Townhall with Blitzer.
Here you go,
Frankly, if Repubs actually manage to get the message out that the MFA/Buy-In Bills will dismantle the current 1965 Original/Traditional Medicare program, I expect that 2020 'may' end up like 2008--when Repubs (McCain) carried the senior vote by 21%, largely due to concern about the threat to Medicare.
(I posted the excerpt from Jayapal's MFA Bill, backing up this assertion at EB a couple weeks ago. Going to put her dissembling words from her Democracy Now interview, in a blurb in my signature line, as soon as I get a chance.)
I am a bit skeptical of Gabbard, as well. OTOH, if she runs as an Independent, I'd at least consider voting for her, mostly because I think she's not been a Washington Insider so long that she's corrupted by the system. While, IMO, it's a plus that she knows the military from the inside, I'm not exactly wild about her being 'career' military--even if it's just 'the Guard'.
Mollie
I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne
Beware! Yarmuth wants to strike a so-called "Grand Bargain" with Republicans. See C-Span video, above.
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I saw that.
That’s exactly how Trump won, right? He held back and never criticized any of the Republicans. I think Bernie owes his $20 donors more than he owes his colleagues and the Dem Party. This is just one of the things he’s done lately that I disapprove of. Supporting Jayapal’s phony M4A bill is another and a recent Tweet admonishing Russia is another.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I'm sorry you felt had to post the hatchet job from The Nation
Tulsi and I believe that the people of Iraq, Libya, Syria,and the U.S. would have been far better off without our regime-change wars. And we still have Iran and Venezuela ahead of us.
I could post Bernie's Senate speech in support of Russia sanctions for their "meddling" in our election, but I won't. I was a big Bernie supporter, but I have come to doubt his judgment--particularly on war. YMMV
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
She met with Assad!
OMG! OMG! OMG!
(basically sums up half the article.)
How many neo-con talking points in just that one half-paragraph?
Theocracies are less abusive and dictatorial than secular governments?
I'm sure the Iranians and Saudis are glad to hear 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?
The worst part
of this quote,
is the assertion that we have removed those secular dictators from power, except Assad, and brought about an improvement for the people of those countries! As if Gabbard's opposition to our regime change policy is that it removes dictators from power! What crap! Her opposition is to what we have brought about for the people of those countries, including Iraq, which is endless war!
They keep asserting they are doing a good thing! With all the righteous criticism they have of the dictators, they seem to be blind to the killing, atrocity and destruction we have brought to the men, women and children we have supposedly liberated, as if the violence and dismemberment they have suffered was good violence and dismemberment.
I am sick of reading this garbage, not from you, NHK, but from them.
Tulsi has the most detailed foreign policy
positions of all the candidates. And it is easy for any of us to look at candidates and their positions from a black and white perspective. Tulsi is not anti-military or even totally anti-war. Her policy positions are very nuanced, and this is something most of us are unaware. She is clearly anti regime change and she is against waging war except under the most dire of circumstances and as a last resort. She is against torture, but she is not against the war on terror or the outlawing of drone strikes. She has stated in the past that she believes we need to be more judicious in the use of drone warfare.
If I were to characterize her policy stances, Tulsi is against the wasteful use of our tax dollars and military personnel. Regime change wars are of no benefit to either the people in the countries in which we are waging regime change wars nor are they beneficial to the people of the United States or our military personnel.
Tulsi wants to bring that money being wasted on these regime change wars back to the United States and to spend it on the pressing needs in this country.
For a relatively concise video of Tulsi's views on foreign policy, war, and regime change, I would recommend her recent interview with Kim Iversen. Tulsi's foreign policy positions must be viewed as a whole.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ybH9p2uFiE&t=12s]
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Gabbard voted for sanctions on Russia also
and supports the same false imperialist narratives as Sanders that Russia meddled in the US election, invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. So what's the difference between her and Bernie?
She has said this,
from your link in the Tulsi at 63,434 Donors!!! comments:
That's a little different take.
My point was she's fully on board with the Russiaphobia of the democratic party including maintaining the imperialist false narratives. Her stance against regime changes is a convenience stance to aid her bonafides with the progressives, imo, much like Obama did prior to his presidency. She's also said "she's a dove for regime changes, but a hawk for the war on terror". Imo, the war OF terror is the worst war, the key war of the 21st century, and she's as big a cheerleader for that as anyone, i.e., like she says, she's a war hawk.
I respect your thoughts as always,
,
and you have logic on your side. Pluto's Republic has written this week about Gabbard's membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, which I think you pointed out recently, and which can only be a bad thing. I'm listening, and I'm watching.
But even if she's a stand-in for the CFR and a way of delegitimizing the peace perspective, whatever she is, she is still raising the issue of the complete disaster of, not only the war in Syria, but also the conduct of the war on terror. It's not even about her. It's about what she's saying.
Yep. In 2008 I recall rooting for Ron Paul, on that basis alone.
I didn’t feel I had to do anything
Most folks here like to keep an open mind, weigh the facts, and make their own decisions. They don’t run and hide from opposition, and people here are free to speak as long as they din’t Attack their fellow posters. We are not Fox News or DailyKos. Too bad you feel a need to censor. I remember all the safe places at DailyKos for Hillary supporters.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Bozo (Beto) is an empty, pre-programmed Puppet
But Uncle Joe likes him
Do you like hot dogs? I have one that tastes like chicken..
Did you see Trump’s Biden Tweet?
Unpresidential but funny. Beto is really bad and Mayor Pete is a gay, religious con job of a progressive. That combination could be dangerous.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Uncle Joe
Joe Biden squeezes Hillary Clinton's breasts, and lifts them up to keep them from sagging all over the Tarmac.
if you have already donated once yourself
ask your family members or good friends to donate to her just once. This trickery not to make clear the difference between individual donors vs donations (multiple donations by one person are not several individual donors). I think even here it was mixed up once in the past.
So, my dog, who is in heaven, says "woof" from cloud 7 "I am donating to her" and I thanked him for his support.
Tulsi will be fine. And I can be stubborn. And isn"t it funny how folks like Tucker Carlson always talk very fast and low voice when they say something that is a lie and not represent what they really think, almost as if they were afraid someone would "hear it".
https://www.euronews.com/live
hold on there pardner
are you saying 'unique, separate donations' do not count if sent by the same individual at different times? Kinda crap is that?
if that is crap, I like to be corrected officially.
If I donate twice to her, I think I count as one individual donor. If my sister and I both would donate twice to her, we count as two individual donors. At least that is the way I understood the meaning of being an individual donor. If I am wrong, I apologize and am happy to be corrected.
So, if I make my donations to her to be done each month for eight month, I am still only one individual donor. Wrong?
https://www.euronews.com/live
Not sure mimi
just questioning the metrics. You may be correct. If so, I think it is a more complicated definition of 'unique and separate' donations.
It isn't crap.
It is unique donors, not donations. What if the Koch brothers contributed a million dollars one dollar at a time. Obfuscation is what Beto and Harris - perhaps others are doing.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thanks for the clarity DK
Still think it's crap. Are these DNC arbitrary hurdles really encouraging lessor known candidates' ability to participate on the debate stage? I think not.
Not sure how they determine “unique”
I’ve had a go in the past at cleaning up the donor-entered data and the best I could do was name/zip. I know of one prominent author (Orson Scott Card) who typed his name in two different ways. And he writes for a living - imagine what the average joe is typing in on those web pages...
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Credit card number perhaps?
It might get them close enough for government work. You ask a good question.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
May be really the only way to avoid that kind of
cheating, is to send in a cashiers check by mail to the candidate. It would be hard to cheat your identity to the bank where you withdraw your money from that you use as a donation.
And it would be hard by a candidate to cheat with his own bank account and name to his/her onw bank, to which you would direct your donations.
I am telling you the web-based voting and donating is really, really fast and reliable - not.
And as others have said, the 'juge debates on TV' will just make money for the TV channels as it's controlled theater by some journalists, who will manipulate the debate, if they want to do it intentionally or simply because there is no way to not influence it.
The system is definitely one of the worst.
I would imagine something could be done about it.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Yes, if the metrics is money
the playing field is already skewed. If the party were to limit what qualifies as counting to 'get in the race' to something like a one dollar vote per donor, it may substantially alter the threshold.
Candidate A -- 200,000 $1 donors = $200,000 = 200,000 votes
Candidate B -- 2 $100,000 donors = $200,000 = 2 votes
But political parties are a business, whose purpose is to make money. Being fair is not a profitable business model. Just saying.
I'm a Tulsi fan too...
...but understand that she has issues (as do we all).
I found this article interesting suggesting Bernie has a better anti-war voting record than Tulsi https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/27/war-and-peace-and-2020-pre...
Realistically, it is Bernie who stands to best chance for the dim nomination. If he were excluded or cheated would he run third party? I doubt it. Tulsi might.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
I am angry anyway no matter what ...
whatever we would see from both of them and if they both would be attacked for that, as being cheating the voters, for example, or if any of the two gets silenced or deprived of their votes by TPTB shenanigans under the radar, it's the same.
Therefore I do think it's best they both would work together and not compete against each other. It would be pretty exhausting work to go against both. I would be as mad for a consistent Bernie getting undermined despite his life-long voting record or Tulsi getting attacked for her youth and changing voting record, as if changing your mind is always equal to betrayal or lack of consistency. More often than not it's a sign of an honest intellect.
I respect both and would love to see them in power.
https://www.euronews.com/live
There may be a bigger plan
Whereby Tulsi (and others?) ask their delegates to vote Bernie. But I have no evidence.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
The one thing Bernie has going for him is his record.
The man would be hard pressed to lie and hide. Mike Gravel is running for President. I'm almost inclined to throw him $5 to get him on stage. Between Gavel and Tulsi, Bernie would finally look to be as mainstream as he really is. I can't get passed Tulsi being military - active military. Military personnel who oppose the military don't stay.
These guys give a real anti-war perspective on the military and support the Tweet that I posted that Tulsi is not the messenger. I'm pretty sure the first one of these two podcasts delve deeply into what it means to be anti-war and in the military. If they went through everything they did to fight the military and all Tulsi has to do is leave, her still being there supports she is only anti-war when it suits her.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Mike works with Abby Martin
So I bet that's a good podcast. I'll check it out.
Donating to Gravel is a good idea too.
https://gravel2020.com/
However, I wonder how powerful the dozen plus dim debates will be, and how they will sideline the best voices.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Tulsi Gabbard brings direct physical experience
...of US foreign policy in action. I think that is valuable if she can analyze it in terms of the benefits those policies bring into the lives of the American people and help secure their missing human rights.
At the same time, I think it is pragmatic to keep an eye on the powerful group that has, for the past century, handpicked and groomed most of our Presidents, Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, Secretaries of the Treasury, and Directors of the CIA.
____________________________________________
This keeps growing, so I've moved this to an essay of it's own.
Thanks for reading.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
May be...
Tulsi would go 3rd party. She is certainly more likely than Bernie, but if Bernie wins the nomination I'm fairly certain she would work for his election. But there's lots of time for the circus to rage before an election.
That was my hope in 2016. Perhaps 2020 will be the time?
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
That was my hope, too.
But I think we really had to fundamentally expose and destroy both Parties first, before we can get a foot hold on a new path.
I think we did a bang-up job in 2016. It has made many things possible.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Trump makes the rot visible to folks who refused to see it.
I’m like, “Well, at least now friends and relations better understand why I moved to Europe and went expat decades ago.”
Yep. This has been a long time coming.
At least we got to see it come undone.
Some of us here are truly relentless. I, for one, have never taken my eye off that ball. There will be consequences.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
this bizarre arbitrary DNC requirement shows how crooked...
it all is.
Donations. Donors. Money. How much clearer does it have to be? Ideas? What are those? It's money, baby. That's what we understand!
So, ok, she'll get past that lower limit and be on the stage. And that's probably it. There'll be 15 or so, she'll be way off on one side, Kamillary and Biden (if he's in by then) will get most of the questions with another few to Bernie and Booker and maybe Beto. The rest will be asked one, maybe two questions the whole night. Because it's crooked, you know.
Then they'll sabotage Bernie and we'll get one of those people we can't stand.
Let's wait until that happens . . .
. . . (and being pessimistic by nature and experience, I expect it will), let's be careful lest we sabotage Bernie in the meantime.
Yes, let's be critical where criticism is due but let's consider context at the same time - that context being either the horror show of the other candidates or the extreme unlikelihood of certain of them getting the nomination.
And I really don't think that this is the same as drawing the Trump vs. Clinton line where there is no prospect of socialism in the equation.