Tulsi has a "presence" no other candidate can match
Standard warranty: I am biased in favor of Tulsi Gabbard, the reasons for which I try to explain as I go along.
As previously noted by me: I used to be a Berniecrat and then I grew up. I grew up but Bernie grew feeble. No spine. His time in the sun was 2016 and the fruits of his long, principled career are unfortunately now behind him. I wish him well, personally. My donations to Bernie equalled the allowable limit. I didn't regret spending the money either, but of course was justifiably angry after finding out, with the aid of Wikileaks, that the Evil Queen and HER court stole the election out from him. Thusly pulling the carpet from underneath Bernie so swiftly, he lost his footings and found his lips firmly planted upon her majesty's majestic gluteus maximus. After pausing to osculate the above-said body part, the fallen Bernie crawled to his knees, blaming the Russians for his fall.
Who has shown the most courage politically after recognizing Bernie's 4 decade long career. Who else has been that courageous? One name jumps instantly to my mind: Tulsi Gabbard. She has a "presence" physically, which one might also say was charismatic. But the point here is Tulsi commands respect without asking for it. When interviewed by partisans, whether Tucker Carlson or Bill Maher, she doesn't play games. And she says she doesn't play games. When interviewers try to get her off point, she focuses back on her points, not the political ploys.
My essay about Tulsi's interview by Tucker Carlson contains the interview. Watch it. That video is proof of what I say. Watch any Tulsi video. Can anyone honestly say they disagree with her straightforward approach, even if perhaps not like particular Gabbard policies?
Tulsi spoke for only 8 minutes during Klown debate number one. But she was the most-searched candidate according to Google, commanding 40% of total debate-coincident searches. She is direct. She is not smug. She speaks with authority on subjects she discusses because she has earned that authority and the respect accompanying this. There is no one in the presidential race, including Donald Trump who can posses such respect, strength and experience supporting her anti-war views
The demolition of Tim Ryan
Tim Ryan has a facial appearance the equivalent of a blank check. There's nothing there besides the dumb face. This war-mongering stooge was cut to ribbons by Tulsi during Debacle number one
The Washington Examiner gives an abbreviated account
5) Reps. Tim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard arguing like it's 2004. In one of the few national security segments of the evening, Ryan made the post 9/11 case for the importance of preventing the Taliban from dominating Afghanistan, while Gabbard made the anti-war case for extracting Americans from Afghanistan. Gabbard's position seem to have carried the room, but this issue is much lower profile now than it was during the height of the War on Terror.
What this milquetoast passage totally understates is the oafish stupidity of a congress critter who thought the Taliban flew their magic turbans into the World Trade Center. Please see the video, especially if you enjoy a thorough political skewering.
Ryan's local Toledo Blade gave him the appropriate debate review.
Tim Ryan needed a breakout moment to launch his presidential bid, but what he got instead was a black eye.
The northeast Ohio congressman, who is polling at the bottom of the pack in his long-shot bid for president, was mocked on social media for his performance at the first Democratic primary debate Wednesday night, with some saying he blew any shot of advancing in the race.
The worst moment for Mr. Ryan came in the second hour, when he clashed with Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard following a question about U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan. Mr. Ryan said he supports American “engagement” there to continue fighting the Taliban. Ms. Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, interrupted him to disagree.
When Mr. Ryan appeared to imply the Taliban was responsible for the 9-11 attacks, she swiftly corrected him.
It should be apparent to even buffoonish T. Ryan that his campaign is finished. To avoid further embarrassment, this clod should quietly slink back to Ohio or somewhere out of sight.
Look at the video of Tulsi's visit to the Homestead immigration detention Center featured in a comment to a previous essay of mine: https://caucus99percent.com/content/day-dem-party-lost-2020-presidential-race-and-both-houses-congress
Tulsi Gabbard's campaign appearances are the polar opposite of those staged for the Evil Queen. The more Killary talked, the more people disliked her. But the more Tulsi talks, the more interested and attentive audiences become.
HRC cannot and will not allow Tulsi to become the Dem nominee. Tulsi would shred her in any debate. Tulsi would immediately zero in on Clinton's fomenting the destruction of Libya. So Tulsi will NOT be the Dem nominee. But she could found a third party in the same rapid manner Nigel Farage created the Brexit Party, becoming the major vote-getter after a period of only two months' existence. True progressives, such as me, would jump into that party in a flash. After vowing not to downy further political contributing, I donated to Tusli so that hopefully she will qualify for the second Klown Kavalcade. The CorproDems will find a way to shunt Tulsi aside shortly after a second round debate. It is then, field by nationwide indignation over a rogue political party overtly again cheating a presidential nominee, they will bolt, making Demexit 2016 look like a walk in the park. Many Conservatives are attracted to her anti-war message.
While still writing in the Great Orange Satan, in March 2016, shortly before the Ides of March Exodus, I wrote a "diary" stating that Donald Trump would likely face off against Bernie Sanders. I would have been doubly correct had the DNC not fixed the result.
My prediction is that Tulsi will bolt the Dem party once the covert cheating is provable. She may not win as a third party candidate, but her Dem abandonment could be the first of millions more. That would lead to El Trumpo re-elected in 2020 but being strongly pressured by Tulsi pushing peace efforts tirelessly. In 2022, the few Dems in power will be so disorganized and plagued by internal bickering as to become such an ineffective entity that anyone will easily recognize.
Go Tulsi. Join with me! Join Tulsi's Gang! Join my gang!
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAAjw5A9jPk]
Play this loud
Comments
Like you, alligator man
I gave and gave for the Bern in 16. After the DNC fiasco, gave up. Swore to eschew the political giving completely. Then Tulsi caught my heart. So I give again. Hope lives again.
Stop the wars already.
Join controlled opposition? No thanks.
Did that before with Sanders. Never again.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
That is the strategy
I predicted Bernie would use. Now I hope it becomes a race to see who goes first.
On to Biden since 1973
Wishful thinking
I wish for it too. Maybe if enough of us wish hard enough, it will happen.
But, I do wish the debates asked better questions. Like, there are questions I would want to ask her since she said she is a hawk for the war against terrorism. How is terrorism determined? Would she, for example, go against Saudi Arabia? Would she turn her back on Israel? How would she determine if an attack was a false flag or an actual attack - especially when she would have deep state whispering "war" in her ear?
I've watched her talk a lot. That one statement is the only thing she has said that I do not like. It seems to contradict everything else she has said.
But, if she takes on the MIC, she would be fighting the biggest terrorists on the planet. Maybe that's what she meant?
Is it great yet?
I take her statements
about fighting terrorism as not an endorsement of the Bush-initiated WoT which has been a disaster, but as strictly combatting terrorism in a smart way which does not involve regime change wars which the Bush policy entailed. No contradiction.
But don't look for her to call for a war against SA. A cooling of ties, and no further arms sales would be more likely, and that is quite a lot in the current cautious and cowardly political environment.
What do u mean by "turning her back on Israel"? Failing to continue our unquestioning undying support, military and otherwise, to the tune of however many billions per year in aid/assistance? That would be a good idea, a positive readjustment of our unhealthy relationship. But this would mean bringing the relationship back to some sense of sanity and balance, not "turning our back".
What I meant
You basically answered your question yourself.
That would be a start.
As for SA, I wasn't wanting to go to war, but I am tired of us fighting their war. By "go against", I meant go against their wishes to have us fight in their war(s). Let them fight their own wars without any help whatsoever from the US.
I guess I'm just greedy for wanting to keep all the money that SA and Israel get right here in the US. I'm even greedier because I don't think the money saved should go to the MIC or to the wealthiest people in the country. I'm also really selfish because I think that money could be used better by making sure places like Flint have clean water (even though I live nowhere near there).
Forgive me for not being more clear about that.
I do wish she had more of a chance to win though. She's the only one I would vote for. Although, if Bernie wins the primaries and names her as VP, I will vote for Bernie. If it's anyone else, I'll just skip voting once again.
Is it great yet?
I would vote for Bernie if Tulsi was his VP
Tulsi would be Bernie's insurance policy because the warhawks would not want to see her as President. Because they don't want that, they will do anything to stop her, as well as stopping Sanders, before the DNC Convention. Neither Bernie nor Tulsi will be on the Dem ballot. But Tulsi has cross-party appeal combined with strength of will to bolt the party and take millions with her. Bernie lost the fire after his DNC capitulation. Too long fighting the good fight. Now he's settling for relaxed life in Burlington.
I don't think you're the only one, either
Sanders, if he does manage to get the nomination, will be under intense pressure to pick a centrist "to unify the party". I think that "I'm not Trump" is all the unity the party needs. Centrist voters can go left or stay home.
By picking a centrist as VP he would be setting himself up for an unfortunate accident which will put the centrist VP behind the Resolute Desk.
BECAUSE Gabbard is equally unacceptable (if not more so) to the oligarchy, they would keep Sanders in office.
Sanders is an old man. One term is likely to be enough for him.
Gabbard in 2020 has no base of support. VP Gabbard in 2024 would be the favorite to win the nomination. She would be a young woman who would flourish in two terms.
"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
Yes, I'm replying to my own comment
Let's not forget about Warren.
Any progressive has to win on the first ballot or be screwed by the super delegates. Right now the progressive vote is being split between Sanders and Warren, with Warren in the lead. Who know what the race will look like in six months, and bear in mind that Sanders can outperform his polling by bringing in new voters. Both of them are over the 15% threshold, so both would receive delegates. It's not impossible that between the two of them they could join their delegates to win that first ballot. Is there some rule that says such an arrangement would have to wait for the second ballot? Hmmm...
So we might see a Sanders/Warren ticket as part of the delegate deal.
That would still leave a spot for Secretary of State Gabbard, which would also bring a smile to my face.
"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
Tulsi would make a great SoS
but Secretary of State is a cabinet post and as such, Tulsi would have to be confirmed by the Senate. I wonder if the Senate would do it?
"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
Yes, let's not forget about Warren.
"Progressive" my ass. (If you'll pardon the phrase).
Bernie has already
publicly pledged to select a woman as his VP should he get the nom. Choices: Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, Tulsi, Gillibrand. Who else??
Most observers see him choosing Warren. Ideologically closer to Bernie than the others and probably better known to Bernie personally, someone he could comfortably work with in the WH. Younger of course. And appealing enough to draw in Hillary backers. Male D centrists might not be enthused.
Harris helps him solidify AA support in addition to Hillary supporters and also, with her more establishment posture, helps keep male Dem centrists in the tent. I would describe her as having one foot solidly in the establishment wing of the party, the other gently testing the waters of the progressive wing.
Gillibrand: unless and until she begins to attract more support, less of a likely pick. But if she does, would be in the top 3 choices for Bernie
Klobuchar: a centrist's centrist, if Bernie wants to go all-in for centrism with his VP. But not necessary given Harris.
Tulsi: not very likely as a Bernie pick. She would bring too much controversy, over her unorthodox FP stances, and Bernie already would have enough on his plate defending against socialism charges.
Harris is a tool of the DNC
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Jen and wokkamile,
I think your comments really clear up the controversy over what Gabbard may mean by being a hawk against terrorism and about what her position is with respect to Saudi Arabia. I expected to hear a massive mainstream media pushback against her saying we were "The Prostitute Of Saudi Arabia." But I missed it if it happened.
This is the correct SA policy
And hopefully, she will downplay, slowly of course, our extravagant support for Apartheid Israel. Saying mean things about Israel, no matter how true, is currently political poison for millions of Americans.
Perhaps this will clarify the concept, if not all the details
https://youtu.be/0KfnC0tudR4
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
I think she is the real thing.
and I am in her corner. great essay.
anyone who wants to hear
1. out of mideast
2. hands off Venezuela
3. free Assange & pardon Snowden
on the debate stage might give a dollar.
she needs 130k donors by end of August.
a little mood music from Roky.
Thanks for your comment and the fine song
I couldn't agree more.
Those of us who backed Bernie in '16
Also thoroughly believed he was the real deal. And we all know how that turned out.
Honestly not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, but I fail to see how anyone can trust any candidate running with a (D) next to their name.
But this is how the game is played, and apparently, it works.
I wish we could all stop trying to convince each other that THIS time, X candidate is FOR REAL ... and invest our efforts into changing this bullshit system.
Hoping Tulsi will go third-party isn't going to work. But maybe we could all swarm her with messages of encouragement to do it NOW, while it may still make a difference.
Tulsi is very unlikely
to bolt and start a 3d party candidacy, and our political system is different from Britain's. As you say, it would split Dems and lead to El Trumpo's re-election. For that role she would be scorned and shunned as the Ds and left woke up to another 4 years of authoritarian Trumpo rule.
And being marginalized wouldn't put her in a good position to be any sort of persuasive force with anyone, let alone Trump.
As for other minor and inconsequential candidates like Tim Ryan, Hoopenlicker, and half a dozen others, they will soon be out, as it's doubtful any of them can make the 2d debate threshold, in major part b/c they started as minor unknowns and failed to make a significant positive impact in the 1st debate.
Andrew Yang is an exception here (given the least amount of talking time of any candidate) as his fundraising ability is awesome and he's already met the 2d debate threshold on that score. Tulsi, even though scorned by the MSM and barely acknowledged in their polling, is showing good fundraising numbers and looks on track to be in the 2d debate.
No one wants to be Nader
not that I think Nader threw 2000, but the Dems were able to stick thair loss to him. Anyone running third party will be Nadered. Tulsi is the only one I could possibly see breaking off, but I still think this is wishful thinking from her supporters. I’m pretty confident in saying no one else is even a flight risk, and that includes Bernie.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Tulsi is playing the long game.
Most of the current generation of Candidate Clowns don't have a long game. They just put their finger into the wind to see which way the wind blows. But you don't need a weatherman to see the fires Tulsi is igniting amongst progressives and anti-war Conservatives. Her bolting the D party, should she choose to do so, will crumble the pitiful, rotting, odiferous hulk which is the D Party. Her goal is 2024--but she has lit a spark which may burn hotter for her than anyone, herself included, expected.
Just look at recent Jimmie More shows filmed before live audiences. It doesn't take a sound meter to hear whom the crowd supports--especially after they start chanting "Tulsi, Tulsi"
@Alligator Ed Very much the truth
Very much the truth about Jimmy Dore shows where Tulsi the standout star. Was at Jimmy's show in Portland last Friday night. Overflow crowd roaring for Tulsi.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Wish I had been there.
I caught the JD show in Tempe last month, looks like your show was better.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u56CqkIlDcA width:500 height:300]
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
the Dems "nadered" Bernie
The Dems like losing. When they win they won't deliver but when they lose they can promise to deliver should they ever win...and that keeps the money coming in, for some reason. You'd think people would wise up!
And in true Animal Farm style they deflect criticism of themselves by "Snowballing" Nader (now called "nadering"). Or Bernie. Or Jill Stein. They also do it before the election, driving away voters to ensure the loss.
And when they win, like with Obama, they can continue nadering by claiming that advocates of any decent policy are extremists who are scaring representatives and senators and causing milquetoast bills to fail.
My point here is that nadering is a technique, not a genuine expression of anything. Tulsi (or Bernie) shouldn't care about it because it's phony and gonna happen no matter what she does.
Your comment is correct but the title not so much
"Nadering" is only one of 1,724 reasons the Evil Queen gave for her loss. Funny how she blames everybody but herself for her epic defeat. You can take this advice to First Alligator National Bank (but don't hurry as we're still, as they say, underwater): HRC is running again. She is changing from her Spandex muu muu into a fine track suit--large enough to span the electric wheelchair she will soon require because of the ongoing Clinton brain rot.
yes. She can't fail, she can only be failed
Bernie did it! Russians did it! Robbie Mook did it! Wall Street speeches didn't do it! Bill on the tarmac didn't do it! All the closed fundraisers didn't do it! The lack of campaigning in PA, MI, WI didn't do it! Jill Stein did it!
Truman said "the buck stops here"
Hiallry said "the buck stops anywhere but here!"
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Jill Stein did it!
Notice how Johnston is never blamed for Her loss? Stein got less votes in all 3 states than Johnston did, but he is always left off the list of reasons.
Bingo. It's the minority party ruse. When the republicans are it they can block any bill they don't like. But when the democrats are it they can't do a thing to stop the republicans from passing hideous legislation.
There are many procedures that congress has to jump through to pass any legislation and it doesn't take much to close congress down. Obama and the democrats hid behind republican obstruction just because it gave them the excuse not to pass anything that would have helped us little folks.
But when will people wake up to this? I read DK daily and the kids only blame the republicans for where we are even though democrats have been working side by side with them for decades. I just SMDH and wonder why they don't get off their site and read some damn articles?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
I'm onboard
I've donated twice ... so far.
She is the only world class statesman in the group of 20. She is the only peace candidate. She has nerves of steel. She is courageous and goes anywhere that she concludes that it is useful. She admits where she was wrong and apologizes. All of the other candidates are chickenshit and will change their positions whenever pushed by the establishment, even poor Bernie.
The Democratic establishment hates her and so does the MSM. But ... she commands enormous respect from progressives, conservatives and libertarians. She has the right stands on identity issues, but doesn't push that. This is the best strategy to overcome the Liberal dilemma - no real programs to solve middle America's issues. Liberalism as constructed by the democrat party elites, is dead -- worldwide. That can be replaced by a synthesis of traditional values and progressive values, or we can morph into fascism.
It looks like "Bye-Done" has been dethroned. Good! That leaves the field wide open for voters to consider all of the possibilities. It needs to stay that way to allow Tulsi to gather some momentum.
This time the challenger needs to make it crystal clear to the party elites - screw me and I will not back your hand picked candidate.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
Yes, Wizard, a fine prediction
Identity issues = Divide and Conquer.
This works. That's why the D party is losing cohesion and morphing into warring tribes--but only one super-tribe counts. That is the anti-war tribe.
You nailed it.
Most excellent comment.
Hope you don’t mind if I share it.
Please do!
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
The ugly truth is that our duopoly
will not allow a viable 3rd party to form. They have advantages set in statutory stone in almost every state to prevent third parties from existing other than as fringe, marginal, ineffectual debating societies. They also control the media, which promotes narratives (as most of us are aware) that indoctrinate the American electorate to view the formation of any third party as a threat to democracy.
Sanders, who ran as an independent in Vermont (when not running for President) is the exception that proves the rule.
The last time the left had a viable 3rd party, its leader, Eugene Debs was imprisoned under the (in my view) Espionage Act.
Only the complete collapse of one of the major parties would allow a leftist party to rise, and that scenario is unlikely as the corporate interests and media elites will prop up the weaker arm of the duopoly. Not to mention the sabotage the MIC and Surveillance State institutions would wreak on any independent progressive left party.
You would see a repeat of history with left wing politicians silenced and or imprisoned should they come close to posing a threat to the status quo.
This is why both Sanders and Gabbard are running as Democrats. The odds of either successfully forming a viable third party that could win Congressional seats or statehouse seats, much less the Presidency is so low under the present state of affairs as to be, practically speaking, nil. Not that their odds of winning the Dem nomination are great, but they are better than nothing.
Absent a complete economic collapse, I don't foresee conditions that would make a 3rd party likely, and in any case the most likely third party to arise under those circumstances would be from the right, not the left, as corporations would not stand in the way of a radical white supremacists/Fascist party than allow a prominent socialist or socialist lite party to arise.
This opinion may not be popular here, but I believe that Sanders and Gabbard are pursuing the best option for themselves by running as Democrats. I don't like that this is the case, but the circumstances in the US do not exist that would make any other option for them possible.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
only game in town
"The game is rigged, but it's the only game in town."
And the Sheriff and his Posse are using their guns to make sure it stays the only game in town.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Yes
But not only is the system rigged against third parties, so is the electorate. At the Presidential level, a "landslide" is 60/40. There's about 20% on each side who identify with the existing parties (teams).
You can't reach them with a third party, and you can't win the Presidency without them. They aren't going to DemExit, ever. The best you could hope for is a 30/30/40 race. that won't cut it.
El Trumpo has 90% approval among Republican voters. Sanders can reach a few with New Deal policies, Gabbard can reach a few with an anti-war message. A centrist can reach a few Never Trumpers by being Republican lite. None of them are going to be enough votes to matter.
The Democratic Party is the only game in town. Even then you'll still need to expand the electorate to overcome election shenanigans by the Republicans. Progressives can do that, centrists can't.
As bleak as the prospects of victory in a rigged Democratic Party primary are, the votes to go third party just don't exist.
Third parties could be viable at the local level, state level, Congressional seats, Senate seats. The numbers just aren't there for a President.
"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
Could that be a start for a constitutional change?
"Third parties could be viable at the local level, state level, Congressional seats, Senate seats."
Steven, good to see you posting again
Teddy Roosevelt Bullmoosed his way past Wm. H. Taft, thereby putting war criminal and racist Woodrow Wilson. But Teddy had had his shot and was relatively old by the time that happened. If Woody had kept us out of war, the Dems would have been much stronger, able to resist the onslaught of Republicans who followed in the presidency. That was back in the days which much of today's African-Americans seemingly forget: the institutionalization of racism, via KKK and others, in that era's Demonratic Party. Then why do Blacks, labelled graciously by the Evil Queen as "super-predators" still support Dems is to me one of the most amazing issues in modern politics. They forget about the Criminalize Black People For Any Minor Infraction Bill gleefully passed during the reign of Bubba.
But many states
have numerous political parties.
I always thought the issue was meeting certain thresholds. Are the thresholds too high?
dfarrah
I’ll vote third party as soon as ranked choice voting is in plac
I think both Bernie and Tulsi should be speaking firmly and often for ranked choice voting. Not the neutered system that Maine uses, which allows party primaries, but an election which includes all candidates, of any or no party. I think that’s the only way to break the duopoly’s stranglehold.
(Actually, I could vote third party even in the current mess. I did in 2016).
A good measure, ranked voting
Doubtful that this will happen, though. I voted Jill Stein, being unable to tolerate the Evil Queen or El Trumpo.
In California, it doesn't matter who I vote for, so it will
likely be Stein again. But no more LOTE voting for me.
Bernie is now all in for IDPol & Russia-Russia, so he's out for me unless Tulsi's his VP.
Third party is really hard, so I'm hoping for a total DNC collapse when Trump wins again.
I just hope Bolton doesn't get us all blown up before 2024.
Tulsi is the best I've seen since 1968, and Musk wants to get us to Mars, so at least I have some bright spots on the horizon as I traverse my 80th year here.
Tulsi2020 now gets my $27/month.
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
Did I write that comment? NO, You did
but that is exactly how I feel.
@Alligator Ed Do you feel eighty?
Do you feel eighty?
Ack. Got me!
I don't feel 80--got a few years to go but feel like mid-50's.
I am supporting Tulsi primarily
based upon her anti regime change war stance. I have posted here on numerous occasions, even before she announce to run, that I am extremely opposed to all wars. And Tulsi is the closest person to being an anti war candidate.
But beyond that, I agree with AE that she has a different persona than most politicians. There is a zen like quality to her. She seems to remain cool regardless of the challenges and I believe we need someone like that to lead this country.
What differentiates her from most other politicians is not just her intelligence, but more so, her courage and leadership skills. Will this translate into her being the Democratic nominee in 2020? I personally doubt that because the system is so rigged against anyone who is not part of the neoliberal mindset. But I believe that her candidacy will have a profound effect on future elections regarding our country's wholesale war mongering and will be a turning point against the MIC.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Yes absolutely, gulfgal.
Her ability to stay focused, remain calm, amidst gotcha type of questions/attacks and still always come across intelligently, very much in control of her emotions, a pleasant person with whom to engage/converse with is truly remarkable.
It is almost Zen like which leads to me to believe she is coming from a higher purpose, which as she says is to serve.
She reminds of something JFK once said.
“ Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”.
I think she has taken that to heart.
Leadership requires confidence in taking risks
for what you believe in, and I believe Tulsi reflects that quality. I wish Americans were less risk averse, but I guess when so many are living on the edge it's quite a challenge.
Unfortunately, from what I've observed,
I believe that the American psyche has a massive case of PTSD, resulting in (among other things) extreme trauma bonding with their oligarchy/MIC/uniparty captors.
Even many people who consider themselves progressive are finding it very difficult to let go of their captivity; to step out of the trap, reclaim their own minds, and become open to new possibilities.
Edited to add: the good news is, people are waking up.
"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
I agree about TG, Janis. That was probably the thing,
or characteristic, that I most enjoyed (with all its faults) about working with the military - the ability to apply logic and reason was, generally, rewarded by the MIC. (Which is to say, it normally didn't threaten Leadership.)
IMO, TG is a reflection of that thinking.
Which is why I could probably vote for her, if she makes an Independent run--even, if it's after the Dem Party primary. It would be a smart move on her part, IMO.
OTOH, unless risk taking is grounded in knowledge (i.e., critical thinking)--it's more dangerous, than helpful. So, until, and unless I see evidence that Americans are putting effort into reading and understanding legislation, I sincerely 'hope' that they stay risk averse.
What I'm trying to say is - "Action, without any knowledge of an issue, or, understanding of the consequences, can be far worse than inertia." But, that's just my two cents.
Otherwise, agree that it's refreshing to see 'a leader'--who can be trusted--lead, and, be willing to take slings and arrows along the way.
Hey, good to see you.
Hope you're still enjoying the much cooler weather in the Pacific NW, 'cause it's still sweltering in parts of the Mid- and Deep South.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I like this bit about action
Thank you, AE. (Or, is that snark?) ;-D EOM
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Not snark
I mean what I wrote.
I agree Mollie
"Action, without any knowledge of an issue, or, understanding of the consequences, can be far worse than inertia."
I think Tulsi has both knowledge and understanding of consequences because of her experience and self-reflection. That’s where I think her confidence comes from.
I’m actually looking forward soon to the warmer climate of Florida.
I feel I don't have to hold
my nose to vote for Tulsi, though have some bias for her due to I live in the district that she represents.
Distrust Warren after her not endorsing Sanders in the 2016 primaries.
Can't vote for Warren additonal reason: she spouted nonsense saying, Julian Assange is a "bad actor" and that Assange, Chelsea Manning and Wikileaks damaged/harmed US security and wants to prosecute them (more like persecute).
This exactly
Tulsi has been the only person running that has said what's happening to Assange and Chelsea is wrong. Bernie said nothing for months when Assange was renditioned out of the embassy against anything legal or moral.
He missed on Russia Gate.
He missed on Venezuela.
He missed when he said that Herheinous won the election fair and square.
He missed on not asking why so many people are running this time when he knows damn well that it's to keep him from winning.
He has to know that he won't get anywhere near the WH and still says nothing.
BTW. Is he even talking about foreign policy this time?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Your list of Bernie's complacent behaviors has me doubting
doubting his ability to push back against the neoliberal hordes even if he somehow magically made it to the White House.
This thread makes some convincing arguments for Tulsi.
One attack on Bernie that keeps getting repeated
totally ignores the fact that Bernie had signed an agreement to support whomever won the nomination, and this was at the beginning when all the other candidates were running as well as HER,and Bernie honored that agreement.
Another thing continually ignored is what Bernie said when he did campaign for HER which was to warn about electing tRump, but Bernie never strayed from the same position on issues he had pushed as the candidate.
For example he never said "single payer will never ever happen" or any other Hillary position that conflicted with his own, he honored the agreement but never gave up pushing the same things he has pushed for decades.
If anyone can find me a clip of Bernie pushing anything HER said that contradicted his expressed views when running for the nomination I'd like to see it because it certainly would've been spread all over the internet at the time.
Imagine how it would look right now if he had reneged on his agreement, he would have that thrown at him 24/7 by the obedient press. How do we trust this guy that didn't honor his signed agreement with the Dem Party ? He can't be trusted! Etc etc etc.
Another thing that bothers me is that most of the people that use that attack on him are well aware of his signed agreement.
My wish is for Bernie to win the Presidency and Tulsi to be the Secretary of State.
However I would also be thrilled if Tulsi Gabbard was elected President and fwiw I have contributed to her campaign and spread her videos on Facebook and Twitter.
Yes and no about Bernie 2016
. True but...
Lots of times back when Bernie campaigned for the Evil Queen, he would say "Secretary Clinton knows that people need [insert appropriate issue here]". But he knew that regardless of what HRC "knew", she wasn't going to do a damn thing which Bernie wanted her to do.
@aliasalias That is a bunch of crap.
That is a bunch of crap. He made that statement when nobody knew he was a candidate and then kept his mouth shut about it for a good nine months. So the people that didn't know who he was when he made that statement, never knew of this so called "promise." I was one and I was very in tune to that particular issue. I always thought he would consider running third party, especially since he was an independent.
Believe me, that shit does not fly with those of us who know the story.
Tulsi has an unusual
presence.
I don't see Trump attacking her like he does others. If he did, my guess would be that it would backfire badly on him.
dfarrah
I 'think' it's because DT considered her for a Cabinet post.
See below.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Oh, I didn't recall that
at all.
dfarrah
I wish she would bolt the Democratic party and run Indy
I voted for Stein and she is a hell of a lot better. Would she get enough support to make it to a presidential debate? She would have to be the ANTI-WAR candidate to truly separate herself from the pack. Could she assuage enough conservatives -- would she come across as too socialist?
But I don't think she would run as an independent. The obvious move up is senator if she does not get some cabinet position. So an independent run could jeopardize that. She is not in Bernie's senator shoes.
Me, too. That is,
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Seems that most
think a 3rd party is beyond impossible.
dfarrah