Again another straw man. When did I ever say that Donald Trump was destroying the workers movement? I specifically said, "Many think that capitalism either creates or uses Fascism as a tool to destroy the workers' movements, and to secure the rule by the upper classes if it is challenged. This means that Capitalism MAY use Fascism to destroy worker's movements(unions). Not only is this statement only a principle of Fascism(State above the individual), but I have also stated that I personally, don't think that Trump is a Fascist. So, why would I think that Trump was destroying the workers movement? Please respond only to what I've said, and not the straw man you use to misrepresent my words. Yes, and I bet you were one of those cheering when the Berlin Wall came down? Yours is not the selfish, nationalistic, isolationist, elitist America, that our founding forefathers envisioned for this country. Our strength is derived through our social and ideological diversity, not through some one-dimensional nationalistic mindset. What if all countries felt the way you do? What do you think the consequences of adopting a "me first and screw the rest" attitude would be? Or, do you even care? Thank God, America is still the land of opportunity for the world. Thank God, America is still a beacon of Democracy and Hope for the rest of the world. And, thank God that you only represent a small percentage of cynical, nationalistic, ignorant, selfish pessimists, that will do anything to keep complaining about the problems, but will do nothing to solve them. I'll bet that you are even religious, taught to love your fellow man, and to embrace social and ethnic tolerance?. News Flash, WE DON'T WANT A PRESIDENT WHO IS DIVISIVE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY HE BELONGS TO. WE WANT A PRESIDENT WHO CAN UNIFY ALL PARTIES WITH THEIR POLICIES. Why is this so difficult? Have we really become so adjusted to injustice? Anyone who is elected should NOT BE DIVISIVE. If you want to ignore commonsense policies, just to preach your insane defeatists divisive rhetoric, then you are just an irritating part of the problem, and should stay out of the way of those who have not given up on our country. Tulsi can do this. Her policies have wide appeal throughout the political spectrum. People from all political ideologies agree with her policies. It is the people who elect their representatives. So, if Mitch McConnell is blocking a bill that his constituents, or the people want, then get rid of him with your vote. This is not rocket science. If a thousand people tell their representative, that these are the policies they want, and are ignored, then vote the bastard out. They will eventually learn that this is a Representative Democracy, and that they all work for us. If the country has become so diverse, then we simply need a stronger leader. There is only one leader that can lead us, by putting service above herself. Then you are the poster child for xenophobia, and certainly do not share the selflessness views of the majority. Hatred and bigotry are also based on our irrational xenophobic fears. Tensions and conflicts in the Middle East, have been going on for thousands of years. But why are we there? Why are we illegally occupying land in sovereign countries? Why are we wasting money and the lives of our citizens? Why are we creating more tension and conflicts in the Middle East? Why are we allied to KSA? Because the KSA controls the value of our dollar, by controlling the price of oil. They also pay us hundreds of Billions of dollars to buy arms from us. They also have an agreement with America(back in the 90's), to protect them if they are attacked. I suppose that withdrawing from two nuclear treaties, surrounding Iran, Iraq, and Syria, with troops and bases, imposing crippling sanctions on sovereign countries, and escalating threats and other war mongering rhetoric, might also be construed as creating tension in the Middle East. Right? What if the KSA had a military base in Texas? Do you think there would be a little "hue and cry"(outrage) by the citizens? You need someone to save you from your cynical and abject self-abasing pessimism. And, you certainly need someone to show you what the proper role of America SHOULD NOT BE in the world.
Maybe you have set the honesty and credibility bar low because of Trump, but I haven't. The main job of the President is to be the Commander-in-Chief. This means the power to deploy our troops to foreign countries, or to impose sanctions(IEEPA and OFAC), is the Presidents alone. Even the Presidents power to make or enter into Treaties, only requires the advice and consent of the Senate. This means that Tulsi can stop all wars and the sanctioning of all countries, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS. So, NO I DON'T SEE. If she only made good on just those two promises, that would be good enough to save this planet. If Tulsi is elected, then her policies would become mandated by the people, not just her. This also means that her policies would also be now mandated by the people's elected representatives as well. Her message is now starting to resonate, as she is being seen and heard more often. Talent and truth can't be kept down for long. Eventually people will wake up, and realize that the greatest fear the top 5% fear the most, is the voting power of the bottom 95%. If she does become the Nominee, it will be all over with for Trump. She will have come from being a long-shot, to becoming a sure-thing. A one-on-one debate with Trump, would be like a mother debating with a 5 year old. The contrast between a military, foreign and domestic policy expert, and someone with no experience at all, would be embarrassing even to his most faithful. She could be the first nominee that could win all 50 states. My fear is that they will do anything to keep her silent. We can get anything done if we just stay united, and not be distracted by these corporate dog and pony shows. People don't understand, that it is not that Tulsi stands up to Corporate America, the MIC, the FFI, the DNC, Wall Street, Big Tech, Pharma and Agra, the Private Prison Industry, but that she stands up to them with the truth. Truth to power. For this, all they can do is smear her, attack her, dismiss her, insult her, make false associations, question her loyalty and allegiance, and attack her upbringing a religion(Hindu). She has withstood all of this, since day one of her campaign. I have nothing but respect for her demonstrated courage and strength. It may not be the "prez" that calls the shot, but it certainly should be. Why would you be so content to accept anything less? What has any other candidate shown what they are willing to sacrifice? Tulsi has already proven what she is willing to sacrifice. Her policies, her integrity, her principles, and her commitment to serve, is beyond even a conceivable doubt. This is the first election where people have the option of only two choices. Vote for a Democratic or Republican bought and paid for stooge, or the only person to stop killing people, and to take us away from the precipice of a nuclear winter. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Maybe you can give your corporate-instilled answer to the questions raised in this video?
Again, Tulsi hits it out of the park. I just don't get it. Are we all so use to the spectacle of truth, that we can't accept the reality of truth? We ARE the people, and it is "We the people" that have the power. Not Corporate Media, or Corporate America. UNLESS YOU ROLL OVER AND LET THEM.
Tulsi only has to look at the current WH occupant to see what can happen when you don't follow the program. Truth is we the people have damned little to say about how power is used. Epstein didn't kill himself.
I personally couldn't care less what happened to any child sex trafficker and procurer of underaged women for sex, even if he was the Billionaire drinking buddy of Trump and Clinton. The Medical Examiner has ruled Epstein's death as a suicide. So, unless you are just promoting another unsupported conspiracy theory, what evidence are you depositing, other than air and an empty vacuum? Tulsi's campaign have already tasted just how desperate the establishment can be, trying to keep its power over the people. If fostering hatred, disinformation, and smears don't work, well, lets just hope that the establishment fear exposure, more than Tulsi. She needs only one more poll to make the debate. She receives my prayers everyday to protect her from any psycho-brainwashed corporate fanatic. Truth is the collective interpretation of the convergence of objective facts and evidence. Tulsi does not cower away from speaking truth to power. It is her courage and strength, that comes from the power of "we the people". She is our voice. She will never "go along to get along", like the other Clinton 2.0's. To just go along, would be to continue imposing more crippling sanctions, wasting more lives for more profits, starting more illegal wars, and wasting Billions of more taxpayer's money. She needs our support, not our cynicisms. Unfortunately, it is her strength, integrity, fearlessness, intelligence, gravitas, and willingness to sacrifice everything for her principles, that directly threatens the latent insecurities of most women, and many men. Not her policies.
It doesn't bother me that Epstein is dead but the idea that the investigation that would have implicated an unknown number of powerful figures is likely dead as well does. You may believe whatever you like but the stars really lined up for his death. Tulsi is an interesting option if one is going to vote Democrat but she's too far left of center for my vote. She is not my voice and I too am of the people.
What's wrong with imposing crippling sanctions? It's a better solution that appeasing aggressors or engaging in some kind of conventional warfare with a fellow nuclear power.
I like Tulsi speaks of the failed Bush, Jr. - Obama Foreign Policy. Labeling them as same, same. One label for both presidencies foreign policy. Meanwhile there are editorials passing as news that she is planning something dastardly. Like a Third Party run. (She should use the Trump line, fair treatment, no 3rd Party) Or getting a job in the second Trump administration. Regardless of her official poll numbers being too low to address the Iowa events, Tulsi Gabbard does seem to scare the Democratic Party and their media. Moi Gabbard first choice 2020 Trump second choice. Waiting for indications of Gabbard's policy.
What aggressors are you talking about? What aggression has threatened the security and sovereignty of the US? Specifics please. Are you seriously suggesting that imposing sanctions on countries, that kill thousands of women and children(40,000 in Venezuela), is a better option to an all-out nuclear confrontation? Wow. Maybe it will take a better leader to avoid both. America only imposes these sanctions on countries that, refuses to pay for their oil in American dollars, or choose to nationalize their wealth and natural resources, or refuse to let corporate America(KFC, MacD, Taco Bell, etc.) plunder their countries' economy. Oh, has Trump lifted the sanctions on the Russian Oligarchs? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/us-lifts-sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia Eventually, these sanctioned countries will be forced into a conventional war, just to save their economy, and stop their people from dying. Think of it as a siege. A blockade that prevents anything going in or out of the country. It is an act of war, but no country is willing to fight America. The wealthy aren't going to suffer. It is only the poor that suffer from any sanctions. Eventually, countries will just stop taking it from America, and band together to fight back. Remember, it took the might of 17 Allied countries, to defeat 6 Axis countries in WWII.
Can we just forget about labeling policies as right, center, or left? What policies do you not like(or understand) about Tulsi, and why? Everyone keeps saying just how interesting Tulsi is, but they always leave out the specifics. They know that her policies are correct, and desperately needed, but because she is a Democrat, Centrist, or whatever label, their own cognitive dissonance won't allow me to make a "no brainer" choice. Who in their right mind could disagree with stopping all wars, removing the crippling sanctions to sovereign countries, bringing our troops home, saving Trillions of dollars, getting money out of politics, stop arming terrorists, re-instating Glass-Steagall, abolishing the Marijuana Law, and Medicare for All + Choice(like all other developed countries)? Why would anyone keep voting for zero social change? Why would anyone keep voting for spectacle instead of facts? Why would anyone keep arguing about a welfare state, when all the Oligarchs and Plutocrats, are laughing all the way to the banks? I just don't see it. I'm beginning to feel like the little girl, who saw that the king was not wearing any clothes. This just seems so obvious to me. What am I not seeing? If your Epstein warning was to draw attention to Tulsi's safety, then all I can do is pray for her continued health. Other than this, I have no idea of what conspiracy theory you are trying to peddle, without evidence.
1. Her pro abortion stance including federal money to pay for them. 2, She is anti gun. Other than those two issues I would be willing to listen to her. I agree with her military engagement policy to a point but it might be too severe. As attractive as it may appear to rule out actions that result in regime change that could easily come back to bite us.
Abortion is a Constitutional right, protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not she chooses to have an abortion. This protection was again highlighted in "Roe v Wade"(1973), which protected a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, without excessive government restrictions. Either you believe that under no circumstances should abortion be legalized(health of the mother, rape, incest, deformity or mental retardation of the foetus, etc.), or you are a pro-Abortionist. Tulsi made the statement, “I agree with Hillary Clinton on one thing. In the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president and she said abortion should be ‘safe, legal, and rare,". I would have added "available" as well, but she is correct. Unlike Biden(and apparently yourself), Tulsi does not support the "Hyde Amendment", which bans any federal funds from going towards any abortion services. This amounts only to a ban on abortion for all low-income Americans. Her view on limiting abortion in the third trimester, is in line with the majority view of all states. So, what specific idea do you disagree with, regarding her pro-choice views? Again, what specific view by Tulsi do you disagree with, regarding gun control? Do you think anyone should be allowed to own bazookas, missiles, WMD's, mini-guns, assault rifles, LAWS weapons, and other weapons capable of removing the entire community? Do you think her wanting to include repeat violent domestic participants in the background search, is a bad idea? Or, do you think that violent felons, the mentally ill, or children, should also be allowed to own firearms? What do you tell those who say, that their 2nd Amendments rights are violated, because they can't buy an Abrams tank? So, what specific part of the second Amendment do you think she is threatening? She is the only candidate that I can't find even ONE relevant fault. Regarding your unfounded fears, that history does not support, we are just not the world's police. We need to first get our own house in order, before we decide how other sovereign countries should run their own house. Haven't we learned our lessons about how our government has used lies, to justifying attacking other countries(the Tonkin Incident, WMD's, Assad gassing his people, etc)? So, it is not just attractive, it is due diligence, justifiable scepticism, and common sense. What example of any country "coming back to bite us" can you deposit? What country dealing with their own social needs and problems, is going to attack the USA? No other country has the means to attack and invade America. If we continue this proxy regime-change wars(not just attacking terrorist), we may force China, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and other countries to join together to fight against American Imperialism. WE WOULD LOSE, and abortions and gun control would become totally irrelevant. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/29/united-states-china-russia-great-power-war/
I will respond to the bolded portion. Where you make your mistake is to think that I am one of a small number of blah, blah, blah pessimists. The truth is the percentage is rather large (Trump's approval rating hovers around forty percent). And it is not only in this country. Right wing parties gain popularity through out Europe with every election and for much the same reason as here in the US. Despite your colorful prose denouncing me and my ilk, our movement is growing and you will find yourself on the wrong side of history.
There is no right or wrong side of history. There is only a perspective of history. The history told from a white nationalist's perspective, will not be the same, as the history told from a slave's perspective. This is just a useless idiom, disguised only as a veil threat. I sincerely hope you are wrong. Our society is divided enough. We are all Americans, and our goal should be unity, not division. The minute we start identifying ourselves with any political, social, or religious ideology exclusively, is when we start claiming privilege and elitism. We should be focusing in on the things that we all have in common(family values, language, sense of community, religious beliefs, sports, customs and norms, marriage and death, music and arts, etc.). And, not be threatened by our differences and insecurities. Like Tulsi says, "It doesn't have to be this way.". Focus only on the policies. It doesn't matter if they come from the dog catcher. Look at the policies from all perspectives. For example, UBI and a $15 minimum wage. Sounds great, except, what do you think will happen to the prices on goods and services? Corporations only care about maximizing its profits at every opportunity. So, unless you are also imposing a price freeze on some goods and services as well, then these policies are just another form of inflation, to make the rich richer, and make your savings worth even less. This is how you scrutinize policies. Then I focus in on the intangibles(experience, integrity, gravitas, authenticity, character, courage, principles, etc.). It is always the past that defines the future you. There is only one candidate that stands out far above the rest, in every area. I certainly hope that my country DOES NOT descend towards the Nationalist Fascist Ideology. I think my government has killed enough women and children, started enough foreign wars, preached enough intolerant and racist rhetoric, sanctioned enough countries, abandoned enough treaties, given enough arms to terrorists, wasted enough taxpayer's money, meddled into the affairs of enough foreign governments, and have ignored enough urgent social issues. I sincerely hope, that the only history our country will not be remembered for, is destroying our world. Your movement is grounded in hate, racism, fascism, and a complete lack of humility and empathy. At best, your movement will be ignored, as a group of extremist radicals that judge and ridicule other people because they didn't choose the right parents. At worse, their movement will fill the void of insecurity, for those struggling to attract attention and self-importance. If you need to make others feel worse about themselves, so that you can feel better about yourself, then you and your movement, are just part of the problem, not the solution. A world full of hatred, racism, and xenophobic nationalists, is a Fascist world. Where happiness and individuality comes at a price. I suspect that this fundamentalist mentality is just evolutionary baggage, that is necessary to appease our herding instinct.
Sorry, it's a curse. You made three statements about Tulsi that I wanted specifics on. Maybe, there is an issue that I am over looking. Abortion is the right of every woman, and is protected by the Constitution. Therefore, being an anti-abortionist is meaningless, unless we change the Constitution. What we CAN talk about, are the State regulations and restrictions to abortion. She believes that abortion should be limited in the third trimester, unless the health of the mother is threatened. So, again what specific issue do you disagree with Tulsi's pro-Abortion agenda? Simply saying that Tulsi is a pro-abortionist and wants to use fed. money to pay for it, means that you are an anti-abortionist, and only want the rich to be able to afford an abortion. Is this correct? On gun control, what specific policy do you think is threatening our 2nd Amendment rights? The only new background search criteria she wants to add, is those with a history of violent family disturbances. Do you agree of disagree? If you are going to publicly assert that Tulsi is anti-gun, then please provide the evidence. She doesn't need anymore smearing to defend. However, if this is just your opinion, no evidence is required. Just like the claim that this war veteran and congresswoman, is being groomed by the Russians. Finally, I asked for examples of when our non-interventionism has come back to bite us? How would we feel if another country decided to change our government? Or, change our morality? When other countries start to join together to fight American Imperialism, the bullying of other countries will stop. From the view of most countries in the world, America is the terrorist. Like Tulsi says, "It doesn't have to be this way".
It is evolutionary baggage in the same way that having only two hands is evolutionary baggage. It would be wonderful if we didn't have a herding instinct exactly the same way it would be wonderful if we had three hands. But we don't have three hands and we do have a herding instinct. Hoping that this instinct would go away is not merely feckless, it is dangerous. More people have been killed hoping that human nature could be changed than ever killed by nationalists. My movement is not grounded in "hate, racism, fascism, and a complete lack of humility and empathy." It is grounded in human nature. (And, btw, using such florid terms as you do is not the way to foster unity.) The Left has long recognized that people as they are could not build the new society they craved. "The New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский человек novy sovetsky chelovek), as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country's cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1]" https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/873970 The problem with this idea, is that it is simply not true. Men are not born as "blank slates" to be inscribed with Leftist notions but with a human nature that severely limits the extent their behavior can be modified. Science is discovering this to be more true every day, and the rejection of this science is characteristic of the Left. It is this insane project to build a society out of idealistic notions that will destroy this nation.
I answered your questions the best I could. She is pro abortion and anti 2nd amendment. Red flag laws violate our 2nd amendment rights as well as the ones that you believe support abortion. These are some of her positions that make her unacceptable not an attempt to smear her.
I apologize for what most seem like badgering. You have a right to whatever opinion you like. You just don't strike me as a one dimensional thinker. You strike me as a person that uses facts and logic, to form an objective opinion. Things are not always in black and white. The "Red Flag Laws", or the "Extreme Risk Laws", allows the police or family members to petition a state court to order the TEMPORARY removal of firearms from a person who may present a clear danger to themselves or others. This means that they need to go to court to prove their case, beyond a reasonable doubt, using a preponderance of objective evidence. Do you think children, felons, the mentally ill, and now those that the courts have decided are a danger to themselves and others, should be allowed to own and keep firearms? If so, then the 2nd Amendment is absolute, and EVERYONE(even the blind) should be allowed to own and keep firearms. What rights do you think are being violated, when we put people in jail for life, or even execute them? We are only talking about temporarily taking away firearms from those that have proven to be a danger to themselves or others. Surely this is just common sense. What could anyone possibly see wrong with this? And, how does it threaten our 2nd Amendment(well regulated militia) rights? So, I don't see any violation of our 2nd Amendment rights. I see only commonsense regulations to protect society from the wrong people using firearms. The problem when you label someone, you have to be careful what the connotation of the label is. If you say that Tulsi is a "Pro-Abortionist", the connotation is that she is in favor of having an unborn foetus aborted. I doubt if anyone is in favor of aborting foetuses. But, if you say that Tulsi is a "Pro-Choice Activist", the connotation is that she is in favor of women making their own choice to end their pregnancy. Can you see the differences in overtones and implications? There are many forms of smearing someone. This is just one. So, when you say that her pro-choice position on abortion rights makes her unacceptable, then you must believe that women should have no decision over their own reproductive system. Therefore, women should have no rights to an abortion. This position would be violating a woman's 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights https://www.hli.org/resources/abortion-no-constitutional-human-right/ . So, Tulsi's position is the only rational position. If you still can't follow my train of logic, then I think that we should just agree to disagree, with respect.
Is a UBI or a $15 wage inflationary? yes. But the point is the people who are most at risk in this economy will benefit the most from it. I will give you 3 example scenarios. Imported goods: American Labor is only expended on the retail end. Transportation is already above $15 per hour . Labor's share of retail cost is 7%. Lets say 2/3rds (1/3rd of present employees make $15) of that labor doubles from 7.50-15 that will only increase labor share costs of sales price by 4%. So a $49.99 pair of jeans will now be 52.99. But the 40% of america that makes less than 15 now can afford to buy an extra pair. The price went up $3 bucks but thier income went up say 50%. Now people like me and my income would be paying 53 and not 50 but that is a small price to pay for society to become much more equitable. Car and gas no effect but for the cashier person. Everyone already makes way more than 15 per hour already. Utilities, everyone already makes more than $15, same with healthcare even the janitors in the hospital make 15. Never mind the billing people. Maybe the orderly that wheels you out in a wheel chair will get a raise. Mcdonalds (restaurant industry) Mcds says 20% of their prices is due to labor. with the same 2/3rds example of retail making less than $15. A $7 dollar happy meal then has $1.25 in affected labor so the happy meal is at most another 1.25 higher. But for the guy making 10 bucks who is now making 15 that extra 200 a week can play for a lot more happy meals. Do I think people who make $7 and hour dine out much, nah, do I think they will dine out more making $15.
My use of the word "baggage", was meant to mean something that is unnecessary, or a hindrance. In this case, an evolutionary throwback from our herding ancestors. Evolving a third hand would not have any evolutionary advantage, and therefore would never evolve. It would be the same as having an extra toe, or a tail. The problem with any genetic mutation, is that some are useful, some are not, and some are neither. But, all are part of our genome, and can't be deleted, only not expressed(most of the time). The herding instinct evolved as a means of protecting members of the herd from predators. When the leader(or majority) of the herd started running, the rest of the herd followed. A mob is an example of our herding instincts. Both have one thing in common. THE INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT HAVE TO THINK FOR HIS/HER SELF. Those that think too long are on the menu. I know of no one that has ever been killed by hope alone. But I know of many cases where Gay and Black Americans, have been killed by White Nationalist, who also believed that their actions was just human nature. It doesn't matter how many ways you try to spin-doctor hate, bigotry, and intolerance, it will always be an insidious cancer, used to terrify and control targeted members of our society. Let me explain. You must first start with an undeniable truism. PEOPLE DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR PARENTS. You might conceivably make a case for bigotry and nationalism, if all people could choose their gender, their race, and the physical features they were born with. But people can't. Can they? So what right does anyone have to judge, or discriminate against anyone for being born the way they are? Fostering hatred and bigotry, only produces more hatred and bigotry from others. So, you are just creating your own self-fulfilling confirmation bias. It is your insidious ideology that creates the behavior, that you call human nature. You preach defeatism, cynicism, and pessimism. I don't. Unlike you, I have not given up on human nature. If 7.7 Billion people on this planet had embraced your type of ideology, the human race would end. As long as we are all here, I will continue to believe that basic human nature is still good. I'm afraid this sort of topic leaves a real bad taste in my mouth. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
