Tulsi Gabbard makes a bit of news
[upon reading posts on this thread, I edited what I thought was a non-controversial side note:
I'm not sure what I think about this, but it is interesting:
“I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism,” Gabbard began in a statement shared on Twitter Tuesday with her 1.6 million followers.
The Democratic Party, she alleges, “Actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.”
IT looks suspiciously like a carefully crafted stab at creating a third party, scarfing up chunks of red and blue tendencies. Religious red team folk have good reason to bail on Trump .The shitlib hostility to police officers, en masse, created a GOP asset that might also respond to a Perot-esque "common sense" approach.
I'm not enthusiastic about any dreams of an electoral strategy for fundamental change to the loony toons government we are enduring. Her connection to the World Economic Forum CPAC and Fox News is a powerful warning sign about her trustworthiness.
But it is very positive to see an anti-war message getting through the filter system. Two cheers for Tulsi.
Comments
Your description,
fire with fire, helps me to have a positive feeling about her statement. As has been said by others at C99, nuclear war threatens everything, and any statement that makes that point is good from my perspective.
IS that confirmed, though?
She denies any WEF connection; says it was all a misinterpretation of a Hawaiian gesture she made in one photo.
Sounds like some due diligence is in order; if her denial is a lie, then "no I'm not" is a piss-poor way to do that and she knows it; I could come up with better excuses for that myself.
Besides, if it comes to that, why not fault her for her unambiguous (and ongoing) connections to Morgoth? "She's an American soldier who was never imprisoned or dishonorably discharged, don't trust her" is about as reasonable an argument.
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
My hit and miss memory is to blame
but I could have sworn I saw a pic of her at Davros. MY apologies to her if I'm just off the mark.
There is plenty enough political glop in this trial balloon to be wary of. And folding up her tent and withdrawing her case against Her does not smell good. Why pick the fight unless you mean it?
All out-weighed by the antiwar message i'm cheering for in this thread.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
As I commented
in another thread: I would love to see a Peace Party. Single issue: don't touch Gawd, guns, gays, neolib-style wokeness, culture wars, or any of the other third rails. Have no opinion on the artificial wedge issues, and call them out as such. If there was to be any other current issue anywhere near the front, use the "peace dividend" to protect Social Security at all costs, and get COLA adjustments to reflect reality. Once there's peace, and some shelter against cat food for seniors, then perhaps a bottom-up approach to livability makes sense down the road: minimum wage and all that.
But first, peace. Period. After there's peace, perhaps gutting the MIC's infinite slop trough might be in order. None of this Yang-style gobbletygook.
Not gonna happen, I know; peace isn't sufficiently profitable. But the overriding issue right now is not waking up dead, IMNSHO. That is something that I truly wish could get traction. Tulsi might be able to speak to this.
WRT the WEF thing, she has apparently claimed via Twitter that she was never voluntarily involved in the WEF Young Leaders thing, and that they were using her likeness without her permission back when she was being groomed as a dem future leader. That is possible, of course- the uniparty and the WEF are one and the same at this point, so there might well have been some de facto ring-kissing required. I would like to see her come out and really clarify that, because it is going to hang over her head (and will rightly be used as a club against her) until something substantive is put into the record.
My advice to her, which means nothing: don't be fucking wishy-washy. Say it in plain English. People may forgive changing your mind once all of the truth became known, but they will not forgive prevarication in the current environment. That's all we get from politicians anyway, and we are all sick to death of it. If you are going to be bold, then go on the record- or get out of the way.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
I don't give a crap
if Tulsi was the head of the WEF.
She speaks against constant, never ending, national treasure draining war.
Nobody, but nobody speaks out like this today.
Anyone who tries to find fault in any of her domestic policies only encourages more war.
This is the single most important issue facing the American people today. The quest for full spectrum dominance must end.
Nothing else matters.
IMHO
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
The quest for full spectrum dominance must end
Seem to recall a policy statement from some civilian pentagoon whack a few years back.
It was a pronouncement that the US was gearing up to be the biggest bully in the world.
Major military appropriations ensued. Out-spending the rest of the world on war toys was
thought to secure such a dystopian future. Now enlisted soldiers are told to take advantage
of government subsidized food stamps to feed their families.
Peace may not be a money maker, but it is certainly less of a drain on our finite resources.
When people wake-up enough to see the advantages of shutting down the MIC money pit
in favor of food, shelter, health care, decent wages and secure infrastructure, then maybe
the Tulsi idea will gain traction.
Invest in US,
not war. Simple message, easily delivered.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
@earthling1
Agreed.
Personality politics is the bane of our age. Ideas and truth are what matters,
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
She will not be reaching out to Bernie.
Bernie went so far as to tell Tulsi not to endorse him or give any stump speeches on his behalf.
I was never that impressed with her. Can't quite put my finger on it.
The only thing I did like about her was the anti-war rhetoric.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Regrettably, *nobody* will be
reaching out to Bernie at this point- and I say that with the heaviest of hearts, as a donor and one of his caucus delegates (back when I could still stomach the dem party).
When they killed him off at my county convention in 2016, that marked my immediate departure from the party. Sadly, his farting-around and outright capitulation since has removed any credibility he had as an organizer. I supported him quietly (and with no cash!) in 2020, fully expecting the same collapse game to be played- and it was. I don't know if they threatened his family or what- but the outcome was that he utterly squandered everything he'd built, just like Obama very efficiently killing his coalition.
Bernie's too old, and far too compromised to matter now. I loved and still love his ideas, as copiously documented here and elsewhere- but if he gets involved as a major organizer with a new party effort, I'm likely to stay away from it. I'm not willing to invest any more effort in something that will just get abruptly shut down and co-opted in the primaries. A new party needs someone with some weight to swing around, and Bernie simply isn't it anymore. Gravitas he has in spades, but he has proven (to me, at least) that he has no followthrough.
Twice bitten, forever shy. And that kills my soul.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Bernie has been
rather quiet on UKR and isn't exactly taking point on opposing all the Russia bashing that has been in mainstream vogue for the past 6 yrs. Also weak and mute on vaccine mandates. He could have been a senate leader on vaccine safety instead of the otherwise awful R senator that emerged.
Iow, in recent times whenever a really tough and politically perilous issue has come up, Bernie has sat on the sidelines. I always thought that when a person reaches his age, he becomes much freer to speak out boldly, stand against entrenched authority, lead a direct challenge against the status quo.
He's been a great disappointment. Most of them are. Time for some new leaders. And preferably ones who are under-75. The feisty and fearless elderly statesman thing doesn't seem to work any more.
Plan B is going as planned.
Bernie dropped the ball on plan A.
I was joking about Tulsi running for POTUS as a Republican, but it is looking that way more and more. One heretofore unthinkable thought: it may be more possible to reform the Republican Party than the Democrats. A Hindu running the God Party? A person used to MPs faced with our out of control civilian police?
As for the WEF thing, I seriously suspect that it's a reverse psychology plot. I see too many people who I would otherwise see as allies, or at least redeemable, talking about "green fascists" and depopulation as a bad thing. The WEF is a pack of billionaires taking off the masks and revealing themselves as Bond villains, as such they want to rule the world through the control of fossil fuels and forced poverty through famine and overpopulation. Green technology and depopulation are essential to defeating this agenda - it must be stopped, not promoted, if you are the WEF. What better way than to make it look like the agenda of ultimate evil?
My first impression is that either Tulsi is trying to start a new party or that she is setting up a run as a Republican. A third party is probably impossible, and with her as a head would probably be too conservative for our needs anyway, but as a Republican she would likely be no worse than Obama without all the police state / drones away with news blackout poison - in other words a disappointment but miles better than anything else in sight.
On to Biden since 1973
My reaction
is the expected move is finally official. She's been on the outs with the DP for a long while and has been making friendly w the GOP and viewers on Fox for the last yr or so. So not much of a BFD.
This move also probably is tied to her new podcast being unveiled today, as her new political positioning might be a better look wrt grabbing a larger podcast audience.
And yes, as someone noted above, why not stop trying to be all things to all people and tell us more clearly whether you feel more simpatico with the Rs these days or if not why not. I understand why she said the things about the DP, many of which I agree with, but now what about the GOP? Do they have any major faults?
I like her anti-war, anti-regime change stance, but have too many questions about whether she is currently planning on representing the America First wing of the GOP, which I would find troubling.
ETA: While I agree that right now peace must be the top priority, that doesn't mean I am willing to overlook or lightly dismiss a pol's other positions, on God, Guns and the rest. She is too much of a cypher for me, too much prone to speak in generalities as she tries to straddle the fence, to be able to determine whether I'm entirely comfortable with her on some of these other issues.
But Peace Party? I think it's been tried before, with dismal results. When I start seeing really impressive anti-UKR War crowds out in the streets by the tens and hundreds of thousands, then I will begin to take notice and then she might have some grassroots basis for forming such party. But so far, it's rather quiet out there. People have been brainwashed, are too busy, lack leaders, something.
I don't like her
but then I don't like any politician. They're all bad, American or otherwise.
Voted for her (twice) ...
... in both the primary and General when she ran in 2020. I wrote in her for Pres and Andrew Yang for VP in the fall election, of course my write-in didn't matter much, but the two of them were the two candidates in 2020 who made the most sense and seemed to eschew the traditional BS all while representing a new generation of leadership. Now both have left the Democratic party, or perhaps you could say that the Democratic party abandoned them.
Interesting conversation
here about our being on the brink of nuclear war.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/10/11/tulsi_gabbard_the_us_...
I went to hear here speak before she ran in 2020, and as I feel whenever I've seen her online or in the debates, she's not a particularly good speaker, but what she has to say is important. Also, I share the concern about her having been in groups like the Council on Foreign Relations or the WEF, whether true or not, because even if not true, the concern is that she has to have been an insider in order to have been in Congress, in order to have been allowed in the debates, in order to be on FOX News, etc.
I mean, even Barbara Lee has joined the Nazi fan club now. Ro Khanna also.
But about Tulsi, I don't really want to go there, because I want to believe she's for real, but she's also very beautiful, a person of color (or so they say,) a military veteran, a progressive on some issues, a conservative on others, she's almost a composite formulaic image of what could get votes. And that concerns me. But no one else is allowed to say what she says in the media, so I pay attention.
If she has become pro-police
I will blow her off completely.
San Antonio:
https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-us-cop-shoots-at-a-teenager-eating-b...
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Agree. Her
brief portrait of Ds on police -- they "demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans" -- sounds like a GOP/Fox host talking point. Very troubling attitude.
If we are all gonna die, I would rather we were all murdered
by a foreign enemy while fighting, than by our heavily funded, US citizen police who have qualified immunity they do NOT deserve.
Anti-white racism is an R thing. Is this a grift to gain viewership and subscriptions from a broader audience?
Damn. She could have been great.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Yes, and murdered
very quickly, preferably so quick that I don't notice. Thankfully, being your average white guy, my chances of being offed by the police in this lifetime are rather slim, at least for driving while white.
I asked below about her kinda curious comment about Ds stoking "anti-white racism". Not sure what that's about, probably bc I don't regularly follow R media.
I am a white woman,
slightly more vulnerable than white guys. I had a client in jail get raped by a jailer. She got out, he was put in.
I am simply more inclined to fight the enemy without, do not feel any need to fund an equally deadly enemy within.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
There’s a lot of wild anti-white rhetoric in academia
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9656363/Yale-professor-slams-NY...
Folks like us’ns at c99% might not be very aware of it, but it is out there.
She was given
a number of Fox appearances over the recent yrs, including guest hosting for some regular host, for the most part bc she was a Dem speaking out against the DP and Dem orthodoxy, an attitude Fox encourages. Understandable, as it also was a platform denied her by CNN and Msnbc. None of that bothers me and some was to be applauded, just so whatever she did briefly with the WEF or CFR when a young member of congress.
Sometimes it's helpful to have had at least a peek inside the insiders' tent to see what's going on while not fully embracing what they are selling, giving her the benefit of the doubt. I'm more interested in her views now, in her political maturity, and again hope she will have the courage to speak out more clearly. People aren't going to flock to her podcast and stick around if she is just uttering her usual banal God and Flag clichés.
Btw: I found one jarring comment in her remarks, decrying the "anti-white racism" from Ds. Anyone know what that's about? Affirmative action?
Vote getter lines like that
seem to percolate up to the surface. Just by quoting someone (normally out of context) in a
fashion that meshes with the ptb story line is the cause and effect.
Maybe...
the woke meltdown over use of the phrase "It's OK to be white" even (especially?) by someone who is black might be considered evidence of anti-white racism:
https://nypost.com/2022/10/04/kanye-west-calls-blm-a-scam-amid-white-liv...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oagqpiGN8lY]
There's also the central theme of Critical Race indoctrination which is that white people - hetero males, in particular - are inherently oppressors and collectively guilty, while everyone else to some degree or other is an exploited victim...
Wow!
Whenever I feel disheartened because I feel there are no American leaders with truly humane values, I will play this clip again. It's not that he's saying what I want to hear exactly, but that he cares so passionately.
My first choice
in 2020, but her getting cancelled by the Dem PTB was predictable.
Although I think she's honest and like much to most of what she does say, what she hasn't said does somewhat concern me.
I haven't heard anything from her re: vax and covid policies, for example. This despite the government and corporate accountability issues involved, not to mention that the vax mandate for military and National Guard (of which she is a member) is a huge issue. There's also the issue of Hawaii's extremely harsh lockdowns and vax mandates for state workers and first responders - which killed off businesses and no doubt a number of Hawaiians.
The criticism she gets from the 'right' aside from supposed WEF association and general trustworthiness tends to be around abortion 'she supports killing babies', gun rights 'she hates the 2nd Amendment, wants to take your guns'.
Both of the latter criticisms don't, as far as I understand them, reflect her actual position on either issue, but some clear and public statements of where she stands on the issues would be appreciated - the issues are going to come up anyway wherever she goes from here politically.
Yup I agree with this take on Tulsi
Tulsi isn’t opposed to all wars. She’s fully on board with wars against Islamic extremists even though she knows that we created them and have been supporting and arming them. It’s a fight against Islam IMO. I don’t know what she actually stands for, but no one gets the okay to be in congress unless they swear fealty to Israel. Has she ever stood for the Palestinians?
Enough said that shows where Tulsi actually stands.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Thanks snoopy
After listening to her full 28 minute statement I am more convinced that she is far too conservative for my taste.
At moments, when I just closed my eyes and listened to her voice and style of speech I was reminded of Hillary.
they used that argument to destroy her
who isn't too conservative these days?
Hi mimi
You’re right, we are all conservative in some ways, and I think it’s good to be reminded of that, so thank you. I would like to take the opportunity of time and further addresses from Tulsi to build a bigger picture.
I don’t doubt Tulsi’s good nature and genuine desire to help those in need. I might vote for her if she ran as an independent, or acquired enough support to create a new party. I would not vote for her if she represented the Republican Party.
I do hope the opportunity for broader choices become available.
Sure, I hope she will work to create a new peace party/nt
Agree. It
was about 97% GOP talking points and Dem bashing. Lots of God and Guns. Our "God-given" blah blah blah "enshrined in the Constitution", which actually doesn't mention God. Wasn't aware she was a gun nut. Also wasn't aware she really seems to want God and religion to be more a part of gov't. Good to know she doesn't believe in the separation of Church and State.
On abortion rights, which she allegedly favored while in Congress, no hint of it in those 28 minutes. Instead, she rails against Ds who criticized the Dobbs decision as it undermines the authority of the Court. She also was concerned about Scotus justices' personal security bc of protesters outside their houses. Oh dear. No mention of course of the many times when abortion providers have been threatened and even killed by anti-abortion terrorists.
She might as well stop playing games and make it official that she is a Republican. She's already in that camp in attitude and on many of the issues.
Gun nut?
Yeah, because the 'right' to defense of yourself, family and community is actually not a right at all?
Because with this (as with so many other things) the state is infinitely wiser and more competent and in any case the legitimate and ultimate arbiter in deciding what is and is not permissible for its subjects?
Because if people are concerned about someone kicking their door in at 2:00 AM or getting carjacked they should just move to a gated community and travel with an armed security detail?
Oregon Constitution Article 1, Section 27
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity.* It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts"
~ The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini
* as defined by whoever happens to be running the state/corporate complex...
Good grief...
OK, Tulsi's appeal was to "independent-minded Democrats" So I suppose you can be excused for not paying attention to what she actually said. But since you are offering sweeping and negative opinions *anyway* maybe you'd care to back them up/
True, (as you say) the US Constitution does not specifically mention "God". But it does mention religion.
The Declaration of Independence *does* mention "God" however:
You say Tulsi wants God and religion to be more a part of government and that she doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. Well, below is the bulk of what she actually said in her statement.
Care to point out for us what she says there or elsewhere that actually supports your contentions?
BTW - where *do* inalienable rights come from on your planet? Or do you have such things there?
Thanks for posting that excerpt.
That certainly made up my mind about her.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
And, it made me gag,
almost puke!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
So if...
someone wishes to wear a yarmulke, Thor hammer, crucifix, hijab or some such as an expression of their faith/religious orientation I have a right to be free of that if it offends me?
Should government have the authority to expunge such so that no one will be offended?
I somehow doubt this would be applied to the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion...
“If you have a right to respect, that means other people don’t have a right to their own opinions.”
— Thomas Sowell
Not to put too fine a point upon it,
but it seems to me that you have chosen to be quite obtuse here.
I don't care if someone wears the trappings of their faith. Not a bit. I do care, however, when they choose to obtusely shove it into my face, and I object more strenuously to a person in an elected position of power doing so.
Here are some concrete examples. The guy with the bullhorn yelling religious epithets at all the people going into Pridefest had every right to do so- he's always there. The guy doing open-carry and storming through the grocery store with a planet-sized chip on his shoulder had every right to do so. The only thing I apparently have is my right to absent myself from the situation. So, when the religious open-carry people decide that it is their right to follow a like-minded political leader, and go obliterate all us nonviolent atheists, we will all have the right to die on the spot. Do I have that right, so to speak?
See, I can play at reductio ad absurdam and obtusely missing the point just as well as anyone. However, it doesn't change a fundamental truth: I have a right not to vote for someone with whom I have a foundational disagreement. That has been revealed to be the case here with this particular politician. Sad, but game over.
Final statement on the topic: when Gawd and guns are involved as driving forces, there will be no peace. The shots I heard out my window last night, no doubt fired by a Responsible Gun Owner who goes to church every Sunday, underscore that very nicely... There's a strawman for you, by the way- have fun picking it apart.
With respect to Gawd and guns, we can simply agree to disagree.
Peace.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
I understood the remark
to criticize democrats for wanting to stop school prayer, to take down crosses from courthouses, that sort of thing.
Who really gives a shit about anyone's religious beliefs, as long as they are not foisted upon others.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
There are independent minded Democrats?
Hard to find, if you ask me. But I have always difficulties to find anything...
Although I bet
there are plenty of New Zealanders who wouldn't hesitate a moment to swap Tulsi for Jacinda 'Global Censorship Now' Ardern...
That may be true BR, but I have no idea if it is.
I have only just had a conversation today with a friend who is politically engaged, but when I asked him if he knew of Tulsi Gabbard his response was 'no'. He lives in Wellington, still has faith in Ardern, but continues to do what he can in support of the Greens. Wellington was the only major centre in NZ that voted “Liberal” for mayor and council last week. As a matter of fact, Labour list MP Soraya Peke marks a milestone for women in New Zealand.
Of the people I know closely only a quarter still support Ardern. I doubt they know who Tulsi is, so it’s difficult for me to make a call on who’d they’d rather have.
yes she is old school whatever, if I were
a proper archivist of online material I would find the video clips in which she drove in a car with her husband. And I really don't care about her relgious affiliation of the past.
I care for how she took care of soldiers in the Iraq war, and that she did. Quite honestly I find the discussions about her more or less ... well find your own expresseion to fill in my blank.
No offense meant.
We have our indian summer in our garden. It refelcts so much about our situation.
Be well, tomorrow is (hopefully) another day.
Actually the Norton
info is interesting. Last I had checked, when she was running for the DP nom in 2020, I'd heard her military service involved assisting the medical corps, which sounded so benign and non-violent and liberal.
I'd also forgotten that earlier this year she had happily appeared at the CPAC convention, where she gushed in the applause of the crowd and delivered her usual God and Country and Freedom platitudes.
She and Kristen Cinéma seem a better fit in the GOP.
as far as I knwo, that was in 2003 to 2005, in case you
didn't knolw that.
in addition she was
IN a war theater and I just wonder how many of those smart guys were there as well.
Just saying.
On reflection after reading this thread
Deleted, double post. See below.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
On reflection after reading this thread
[From my opening post:]
Evidently, dreams of a successful electoral strategy die hard, and the virtue of Gabbard's accurate description of today's Blue Tribe as an "elitist cabal of war mongers" has far less significance than speculation on her ambitions within electoral politics. It sems painfully obvious to me that her potential political campaigns are the only reason why her "announcement" is mainstream news. I posted this thread to highlight the message while remaining skeptical of the messenger.
Having neglected my duty of due dilligence, and repeated an unconfirmed internet legend about her association with the WEF, I have edited the diary with a more accurate reason to be skeptical of the ambitions of this politician.
Personally, I don't care who runs for office and I do not believe the outcomes of elections determine much of anything as both parties and the permanent bureaucracy are dominated by an elite cabal of warmongers.
I stand by my salute to her saying it. There is precious little truthful perspective allowed through the MSM.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Agreed.
What I primarily care about is the creation of a credible Peace Party, and the assembly of a number of politicians with actual bona fides willing to show full-throated support for that party's primary message, which must be of peace; period, end of statement.
Neither facet of the Uniparty will do it: they, and all their sworn minions, are owned in fee simple by the MIC. When either facet is in power, there will be no peace. If Tulsi simply changes from riding a blue sheepdog to riding a red sheepdog, I'll accept it with a sigh and vote for someone else.
Don't beat yourself up about the WEF thing. From what I'm reading here, it is moot in any case. Whatever she does, it doesn't sound as if she'll bring anything new to the
partywar...She has a choice here: she can clarify, or she can dissemble. There is no middle ground. We will know her by her statements *and actions* in the next short period of time.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
I find this discussion fascinating
because it clarifies the point that, if war is the most important issue for the people who read and write at C99, especially right now when our government is debating whether or not to end life on earth, could we vote for a flawed person who opposes our government's policy on this issue.
So I find myself doubting her because of her image and others criticizing her positions on particular issues. Will there ever be a candidate who agrees with me on everything? Very unlikely.
I am a lifelong pacifist, and a leftist, and a socialist, but I am also very conservative on 4 issues that would probably separate me from most writers at C99. I can see in this discussion various ways in which each of us disagrees. But would we come together to vote for an antiwar candidate? That may be the question.
Absolutely
Peace is possible in our time. Whomsoever is brave enough to dangle that prospect out
there is alright in my book. War is not a viable strategy to solve our problems.
Given what
journo Ben Norton has revealed about her current military situation, involved in a unit that deals in foreign psyops, I'm not sure she has much credibility on antiwar matters, esp if we consider whether her assertions about fighting terrorism might just be a cover for involvement in typical US imperialist military activities.
She is also now going to campaign for the RW Gen Boldoc in NH, a guy who early on wanted to insert US special forces and CIA into Ukraine.
So, no, I don't trust her on matters of war either.
And if her previous anti-war position is now in question, what is left?
We would if such a candidate existed.
Tulsi doesn't like forever wars for regime change. Our conflict in Ukraine is designed to get rid of Putin, so she isn't behind it.
What she does advocate is fighting Muslim terrorists all over the Middle East and Africa, as long as it doesn't take too long. Short spurts of war is more to her liking.
I have a few conservative views myself, and I am anti-war, and a socialist.
After reading this wonderful comment thread, and reading more information about Tulsi, she is looking like a lovely woman of youth, being pushed by Fox News, to become their version of a Squad type.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
More evidence
that TG is now in the R camp. She will be campaigning in NH for the GOP candidate, Gen Boldoc running against the incumbent Dem Sen Hassan. Boldoc recently said he has confidence in GOP state lege "gentlemen" to make decisions for women on abortion, and says Hassan needs to "get over" the recent Scotus Dobbs decision.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3684394-gabbard-to-stump-for-trump...
In some ways I am torn
about Tulsi's apparent goals but I totally agree with her stance on the Democratic party. I believe that our country, our society has been subsumed by the corporate/profit agenda. Pick any item that defines a service to our economy, to our people. Now look at that item and how it is controlled, who controls it, who benefits from it.
Education? Transportation? Medicine? People care (way beyond just child care)? Housing? Banking? Security? Politics? Foreign affairs? Agriculture? Journalism? Entertainment? Law? Faith? Unionization? Sports? And the list goes on, everything. Nothing is sacred from exploitation and subjugation. And so much of that exploitation is above the law, any law, the constitution even.
I just received my voter's pamphlet for WA. The choices for my representative are a neocon and a neolib. For senator I get Murray or some gop who says we need to spend more for police. The state reps are primarily gop running unopposed. I'll be sitting this one out again. As far as I'm concerned not voting IS a vote.
Tulsi may or may not be sincere but there is no way she could be worse than what we have today. I watched her podcast (well to be truthful, a lot of it, no more like some of it) and she makes some good points but then wholeheartedly adopts the gop talking points. Hey, if it gets her into the running to pound the cabal, good for her. https://youtu.be/H4Z1x8Ou8VU
As a caucasian older male, I've been accused of racism (cause I was critical of Obama), misogyny (cause I was critical of Hillary), a communist (cause I spoke favorably of socialism), a maga (cause of all of the above), a bigot, etc. I took all of those things as a personal insult but I didn't argue, just walked away. No, I didn't vote for Trump, nor Biden. Obama got one vote from me.
Tulsi has a rough road ahead of her. She can't be worse.
The state reps are primarily gop running unopposed
Yeah I’d like to know why democrats allow that to happen and then they bitch about what GOP legislatures do. I think it’s just another example of the Great Game between the Washington generals and the Harlem globetrotters. As with both teams, dems and repubs have already made a deal to play for the same donors. It’s just kabuki crap.
Welcome to the club.
Most of us here were accused of doing that whenever we gave any criticism that was warranted. This is how dem gatekeepers keep people from criticizing the democrats in office instead of holding them accountable for not doing what they have said they would do for decades. I was told that Obama never promised single payer or that Hillary giving paid speeches to the banks just before she ran didn’t mean that she had made deals with them or that Bernie’s plans could never happen because republicans wouldn’t work with him. It wasn’t the republicans that rigged the primaries against Bernie twice.
I’ve seen a few people saying that Tulsi is going to run with DeSantos and of course the shitlibs are saying that she was never a democrat and she is still a Russian asset. No seriously the orange blobs are gleefully attacking her today.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
All of the comments
in this thread are so good, and they give me a lot to think about. Each comment has something important for me to consider, and even though they raise opposite viewpoints, I agree with almost every one. Interesting!
Lol…Tulsi is being used against AOC
It’s long past time someone called AOC out for her warmongering ways.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Nearly-forgotten Nice Islamic terror attack finally goes to trial
in France.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nice+86+dead+truck+islamic+terror+trial&ia=web
86 dead, 458 injured — all forgotten and meaningless after only six years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
There is a real Islamic terror threat out there. Tulsi is right to be fighting that.
If that's really
what Tulsi is fighting. Right now she seems more interested in fighting the DP while giving a complete pass to the far worse GOP who she is cozying up to shamelessly while not having the courage to acknowledge what is obvious. Long ago I seem to recall she claimed to be a progressive, a Bernie supporter. What happened? Why is she supporting nutty RW GOP generals and hanging out at the Independent Women's Forum?
Democrats could use their majorities to reinstate Glass-Steagall
But they’ve been in bed with bankers and Wall Street from top to bottom, from Joe Biden (prez, formerly the “Senator from Master Card / MBNA”) and Chuck Schumer (Senate majority leader, D-NY) on down.
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2022/10/shhh-dont-tell-the-fed-or-mainstr...
So, go Tulsi! As Lambert Strether says, the Democrat Party is a rotting corpse that can’t bury itself.
I remember how in 1996
Delaware was promoted as the state, in which you easily could incorporate. As a book nut myself, I acutally did incorporate in Delaware back then. But then came this Besoz man and created his first online bookstore with over 1 million booktitles to buy online, and I rapidly dis-incorporated again. In the video archives of the ARD Washington DD studio, there rest in dust some telling Besoz interviews, I think aisle three.
So much for the two Mr.B (Besoz and Biden). May they rest in peace both one day. I said in peace, you hear me?