I Googled "Who is Tulsi Gabbard?", and I didn't see any over the top smears. Just stuff essentially like this, from Fox News: Who is Tulsi Gabbard? What to know about the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-tulsi-gabbard-2020-democratic-presidential-candidate
If you can just follow my logic for a second or so. You are watching the debates on TV. You notice a woman embarrassing and exposing the true nature of two other candidates. She is delivering an effective and very powerful message. You notice that her intelligence, gravitas, authenticity, confidence, and passion, clearly stands out from the rest of the "dog and pony" show. She clearly seems more Presidential and genuine than all the rest. If fact, the rest seem almost immature to her. But you wonder why you have never heard of her, and start looking for more information about her. You type in "Who is Tulsi Gabbard", and go to her Facebook account, Twitter account, and other Official Tulsi Gabbard sites for her Bios. Her "Bios" is a matter of public record, and can't be altered(birth date, marriage, religion, legislations, parents, rank, service in congress and the military, voting record, etc.), or interfered with. You then start looking at the consistency of her voting record on issues in Congress, her military service record, all legislation she has sponsored and co-sponsored, and you begin to believe that this person is just too good to be true. Even the idea of stopping wasteful wars, bombing sovereign countries, killing people to for profit, and saving trillions of dollars to address social and climate issues, seems so simple you wonder WHY it wasn't thought of before? All the relevant boxes are ticked. Now your interest is peeked, and you begin to think that she would make the perfect President. You might even think that she may even be a bit over qualified. Now here's where the conflict begins. It is called cognitive dissonance. We simply can't hold two inconsistent thoughts, without resolving one. All it takes is repetition of anything over and over again(propaganda). It doesn't matter if it is true or not, or positive or negative. The effects will always be the same. Control. For example, if you love the personality, you will love the message. Anyway, you then turn on your TV, and are told by your favorite paid news personalities, that, Tulsi is an Assad toady, a traitor, a Putin puppet, and is supported by Russia and white nationalists. You are also told that, she is a Hindu, promotes conversion therapy for LBGTQ people, loves terrorists, a cultist, is unelectable, an oddball, a socialists, or can never beat Trump. On these mainstream media, you keep hearing Tulsi repeatedly defending herself against these same lies and smears. After awhile, she just stops, because like the tabloid smears, you just can't win. If people are stupid enough to believe debunked smears and lies, those people deserve the Government they get. Unfortunately, it is our Democracy that suffers. All these lies and debunked smears, only distract our attention away from the documented CIA sponsored terrorism that we carry out all over the world(Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, Africa, Guatemala, Panama, Honduras, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, etc.). Just ask yourself, why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden was killed 18 years ago in Pakistan, so why are we still in Afghanistan? Saddam Hussein was executed in Iraq almost 13 years ago, so why are we still in Iraq? I bet you believe that Assad is hated by his people, because that is what you are told by the media. In fact Syria is the most progressive country in the Middle East. Just name one country since 911 that is better off, since US involved intervention? These are the questions that a leader would ask, not a follower. But I digress. So you then want to resolve this dissonance, and search the internet regarding these smears and lies(not her bios or bona fides). So, please type in "Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian toady?", or the other two searches relevant to specific smears that you neglected to mention. How about, "Does Tulsi Gabbard support dictators?", or "Is Tulsi Gabbard a white nationalist/?", and just read all the insinuations, and subtle implications, that repeat the same debunked smears, like "her friendly stance on Syria", or, "..she is a paradox for the left". This is called "packaging the message". This gives the message only the appearance of truth. Now you might be one that can discern BS from gravy, but if it is repeated over and over again, no one is immune. That is why it works. The only way to win, is to break the addiction cycle. I use to love TYT, Rachel Maddow, Chris Cuomo, and hated Fox News. Then I learned that they all belonged to the same talent agencies(CAA/ UTA), and that their print, news, and radio medias, are owned by six corporations, which are owned by Billionaires. I then woke up. Ratings is all they care about, not the truth. If you want the truth, try conducting your own investigations, looking at real files, real legislations, real events, and the convergence of unbiased and impartial facts. Or, you can listen to unbiased journalism from independent media, such as Kim Iversen, New Progressive Voice, Hard Lens Media, Joe Rogan, Niko House, M. Tracey, The Jimmy Dore Show, and many other independent media outlets, that are not ratings driven. They are truth driven(at least most of them). Now, I am immune to the influence of celebrity actors from Arts agencies, trying to convince me to think the way their bosses want me too. Now when I watch these shows, it is only for their entertainment value, not for the truth. Anyway, that was my two cents worth.
Almost no one works that hard. You look at her Wikipedia article and discover she's too young, spent only a few years in the House and lives in Hawaii. If that's not enough to direct your attention elsewhere you find out your primary is in late April after the race will be declared over or at least most candidates gone and don't think about them again until January.
So your idea of a President is, someone who is old, lives anywhere other than Hawaii, and has been in Congress for a long time? In other words, substance is not your thing. It doesn't matter what she has accomplished in the House, what experience she brings, her intelligence, her vision and message, her integrity and authenticity, or that she is our best hope for any changes in our future? I suppose that it is best to stick with the corporate devils that you do know, who will clearly do nothing to address any of our social issues, except to offer the same empty promises. Why should you bother to consider anyone that is young, intelligent, lives in Hawaii, and has an over-qualified and impressive resume? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mee...ber-congress-2020-candidate/story?id=60708986 . Why should you consider anyone that has the courage and strength to challenge corporate America, the Fossil Fuel Industry, Corporate Media, the DNC, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Tech Industries, the Pharmaceutical Industries, Big Agra Industries, and Wall Street, and is trying to save our country from its own ignorance? Why should you support a combat Major and politician, that only wants to stop illegal wars, de-escalate the new nuclear cold war, save lives all over the world, and save Trillions of dollars to address our own social issues? Insane, right? Anyone like this, should only be judged by their mainstream headlines, where they live, how old they are, or when the primaries will begin, and the length of their service in the House. Again, substance is not your thing. This is what they wanted you to see and hear about the frontrunners at the "gun sense"forum, https://www.newsy.com/stories/what-the-democratic-frontrunners-are-saying-about-gun-safety/ (no Tulsi). And, this is what they did not want you to see and hear at the same forum, https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1163441022304579584 (Tulsi actually was there). This is what real compassion and empathy should look like in a human being, and especially in a President. She is the real deal in our lifetime. Unfortunately, we have been fed so much theatrical BS for so long, that when we actually see what is the real thing, we reject it as just more BS. It is not just her powerful message that threatens the status quo, otherwise Bernie would be a threat. It is her character attributes, and how she delivers her message that threatens them the most. It is this natural talent, that no other candidate has, that terrifies them the most. They saw what happened in just two appearances on the debate stage. Four more times on the debate stage, and the choice would become very clear who the real President is. They will do anything to stop this from happening. Maybe it's just too late. Corporate America, Billionaires and Millionaires, and THEIR mainstream media(radio, print, and TV), controls our Democracy. Because they certainly control how we thing, and the choices we can make. Only Biden and Warren will be the DNC's(and corporate America's) choices for us. Biden will eventually win the Nomination. He will be destroyed by our current narcissistic sociopath, at the debates. This is just another win-win for corporate America, and another loss for our Democracy. We need to look past the media's hyped characterization of the candidates, that are bought and pay for, to serve only their best interests. What rational person would think that Biden or Warren will challenge the corporate status quo? Especially since both accept corporate pac money, corporate super pac money, fossil fuel money, and federal lobbyist money? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...candidates-campaign-donations-finance-pledges . We will never find solutions when all we look at is the problems. The answer is telling us to our faces, and we are just too stupid to listen anymore. So they will continue to win in every election. I guess we will just have to wait another 4 years for the next round of promises to address and fix our social issues.
Too young? Is that really how you judge candidates? By whether they are old enough, whatever that means. Also, how is living in Hawaii a disqualifier? You have some strange standards.
Governors preferred, Senate good, 50-64 best age range, longest experience preferred (10 years in office or more), purple state outranks states of candidate's color, then consider platform. For this race you have Bullock, Booker, Bennet, Harris, Klobuchar and Gillibrand with proper credentials plus Delaney and DeBlasio the right age. Obviously I was very unhappy in 2016 when both parties went outside my perameters. We're all sorry now.
Five out of 44(one was elected twice, Polk) of our elected Presidents, were never elected to any political office, and one has had absolutely no political experience at all(Trump). There are 11 swing(purple) states in the Union. 22 of our elected Presidents came from these states, and 22 did not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_home_state . Cognition is our mental ability to understand and acquire knowledge, based on how we perceive our experiences. Cognition also includes thinking, knowing, remembering, judging, and problem solving. Studies(UCLA) have demonstrated that cognitive decline/impairment begin as early as 45 yo in men, and 50 yo in women. This decline in cognition will continue into our 50's, and 60's, and will become more pronounced in our 70's and 80's. This is a natural biological process, as we near the end of our life. Considering the incredible nature and challenges of the job of President of the most powerful country on the planet, 38 yo would seem the most optimal and logical age to me. So, which state the candidate happens to be born in, has no real relevance(50/50), or importance that I can see. You're not suggesting that candidate should all move to your purple states, just to suit your criteria are you? People don't choose where they are born. Also, Elected Public Service experience is only relevant, if the substance(quality) of that experience is positive, not simply the duration(quantity). Kamala Harris has 12 years in public service(6 years DA of SF, and 6 years as AG of Calif.), but look at the life's and future hopes of people she has destroyed? Finally, I believe the age criteria should be more realistic, and should reflect a balance between having a modern and contemporary view of reality, and a level of cognition that can adapt to any of the stresses and demands that the job requires. The only things that should matter, are the candidate's policies, and their intangibles. His/her policies must solve the problems, not simply promise to. His/her policies must never defame, or disrespect the image of the US of America, or make America the laughing stock of the world. His/her persona must never be an embarrassment to those with a few working brain cells. His/her policies must be doable, believable, practical, affordable, and workable. He/she must above all be a leader and a visionary, that can actually inspire others to follow, not simply force them to obey. Only a true leader can do this. He/she must have palpable confidence, gravitas, genuineness, authenticity, integrity, uniqueness, that would clearly stand out from the crowd. Only one candidates possess ALL of these qualities. Unfortunately, her message would destroy the status quo, so the majority must be conditioned to think that they are thinking for themselves. Inferring that there is some credible link between your parameters, and the election and Primary results in 2016, is just fallacious, one-dimensional, and self-fulfilling at best, and insane and ignorant at worse. Unless, you can provide some consistent evidence, that is not just coincidental? But, I suppose its better than a criteria, based on hand sizes, length of hair, or accents, like some others have.
Something is very wrong with your statistics and that first line has serious flaws. I don't know which Presidents you consider successes or failures. Those arguing my age preferences could cite Teddy Roosevelt (too young) and Reagan (too old) but successful. Teddy's success was from the bold moves a young man is likely to make. Reagan's success was largely of the judicious passive nature you expect from an old man. Which young Presidents governed like old men? Which old Presidents governed like young men? For non-historians we look at recent results. Obama was at the 10-year threshold but a little younger than I like them. If you consider him a success think how much better he might have done if he was now in his first term or how formidable he would be in this election as a third-term Senator. Instead he's an albatross we'll carry til death. Any bad decisions in his 8 years are linked to inexperience (making the debacle of 2016 possible). W. was the right age and right breeding and experience. I consider his administration a success. It was too late to address the recession and that was due as part of the business cycle. Clinton's weaknesses were all due to immaturity, though his political experience was adequate for the job. HW was on the high end of my age perameters and governed wisely. The public didn't understand. The decline of age was a problem for Reagan. Ill health was a problem for Eisenhower. The other old President whose age was a problem was Jackson, cranky old man, but electing him 4 years earlier wouldn't have helped. He would have served 3 terms and done more damage. Inexperience in politics was worst for Grant, who was also too young. Arthur did amazingly well despite his inexperience. I don't know why you mentioned Polk. He had lots of political experience, was only 49, promised to serve only one term and worked himself to death (months after leaving office, age 53). As to the election of 2016, the most conspicuous thing is that no one Obama's age got anywhere. He poisoned the water for people born in the early 60s. See how far DeBlasio and Delaney get.
Trump is a Joke - and look how far he got Tulsi is far less of a joke than Trump - or Biden, Warren, and most of the rest of the field.
Just an an addition - I have heard figures as high as 6 Trillion. We never not been militarily invulnerable since the advent of nukes - in any realistic sense of the word - as in "sans nuclear annihilation" by Russia in which case they would be annihilated as well. Building more Aircraft Carriers and keeping manpower levels high will not change this one bit .. nor will those hundreds of bases you mentioned. This crazy missile defense stupidity - ABM's on Russia's border has only made us less safe by ramping up the arms race. Now we are hearing talk of weaponization of space which is loony tunes on steroids. Our Total Military spend is based on a "necessary illusion" - that there is some big bad arming massing at our gates - and this is simply not the case. One Tenth of our current Total Military spend of over 1 Trillion/year would keep the homeland safe. These various propaganda narratives are spoon fed to the public by the big money interests that own the Military Industrial Complex and the Media to justify the continued padding of their pockets. We build obscene amounts of stuff that we don't need and will never use - and the people in the hallowed halls of bureaucratic power know this. Its a pay to play system and the elite Establishment Bureaucrats know this. If you play- along with the Establishment big money interests - you get paid .. and everyone knows it - be it a lobbyist position or a seat on some board of directors .. there are many ways you can be well taken care of for a job well done. A strategy for democracy in the world has never been US foreign policy - who are you kidding ? That is a nonsense platitude used to justify atrocity and horror. Is that what we were doing by arming Al Qaeda - ISIS- and others of the same ilk in Syria ? Good thing the Russians stepped in as Al Qaeda/ISIS were about to take over and we would have had another Libya - but far worse.
I agree completely with what you say, except for the last paragraph, and with one qualification with respect to the previous paragraphs. On your last paragraph, I believe the people in charge during the invasion of Iraq thought that they were 'draining the swamp'. Foreign policy realists like Condoleeza Rice changed their minds about the advisability of interventions. We had already had a successful one in Yugoslavia, dismembering Serbia and spitting in the face of a weak Russia, and they thought they could do it again -- and repeat our success in turning Nazi Germany and militarist Japan into peaceful liberal democracies. There were liberals who believed this too. Live and learn. The US propped up, or installed, some very nasty regimes during the Cold War. But I do not believe that this was done in order to benefit 'big money interests' mainly, but in response to what the policy-makers saw as the inexorable spread of Communism. Sure, when they overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala, United Fruit was no doubt very happy that they wouldn't have to pay wages to the workers on their banana plantations there, but the fear -- groundless -- was that Arbenz was taking his country into the Soviet orbit. I believe they had to twist the arms of the oil corporations to get into Iran when we took out Mossadeqh. (Or so I remember from reading The Prize.) The US refused to criticize the horrific intervention of Pakistan into East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) because of certain diplomatic considerations (talks with China). In any case, we can agree to differ in our assessments of American foreign policy in the past, so long as we can agree about what it should be in the future. However, I do not it think would be wise to strip away all our conventional armaments, and rely only on 'massive retaliation' as a response to a conventional attack, at least not so long as we have overseas allies to which we must remain faithful. This problem was wrestled with at the end of the 1950's. Why not just bring our troops home from Europe, and tell the Soviets that if they came across the border, we'd vaporize Moscow? Answer: they might call our bluff...they had nuclear weapons too, and might think, "They won't risk the destruction of New York, Chicago and San Francisco, for Berlin." So President Tulsi and Vice President James had better keep us armed to the teeth -- I'd go for Universal Military Service myself -- but not get involved in trying to force the tribes of Absurdistan to adopt Transgender-Friendly bathrooms.
Tulsi announced she would not consider making an independent run for the presidency if denied the Democratic Party nomination. But, at this point I guess she has to say that. Moi Tulsi first choice Re elect Trump second choice.
There were 5 elected Presidents that were never elected to any elected political office, before being elected as President of the USA(Taylor, Grant, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Trump). There are 45 elected Presidents, but only 44 men were elected as President, because Cleveland(not Polk) was elected twice. Sorry, don't know why I mentioned Polk. I think I mentioned him, because you stated that he worked himself to death. This is not true. He only served a single term(as he said he wanted to do), and died three months after his term ended of cholera, not being overworked. Three of these Presidents had only military experience, and the other two had neither. Tulsi has both Military experience(17 years, with two years in combat), and elected political experience(total over 9 years) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard . My decisions are not prejudiced by such trivial and somewhat self-aggrandizing, and self-affirming limitations/standards. It is the substance, importance, and viability of their policies, that should determine which candidate should be worth a look. If their policies are great, then the candidate becomes worth a look. I look at the candidate's character intangibles. Are they panderers, actors, corporate stooges, sincere, presidential, authentic, decisive, intelligent, disciplined and composed, courageous, or strong-willed? This is how I determine which candidate I would vote for to become my President. My point was that those criteria(age, state of origin, and political experience), have nothing to do with how well a candidate would perform as President. You have presented zero evidence to suggest otherwise. Therefore, they are all totally as arbitrary and irrelevant, as race, breeding, class, hair color, or sex. Also, ALL Presidents had positive and negative issues during their presidencies. Anyway, all of this is irrelevant if choice itself, is made for you. If you can use Corporate media(print, news, radio) to smear, discredit, to spread rumors, to blatantly make-up lies, to name-call, to limit media exposure, to rig polling results, by choosing the polls you want, and deliberately attack the candidate by having them defend themselves against debunked claims, then the voting process in our Democracy is intrinsically a joke. Your arbitrary standards are irrelevant, if the entire system can be manipulated by those few who can afford it. Why aren't people more outraged, knowing that it is the power of the few that is determining the future of the many? This is not Democracy, this is constitutional insanity. What if corporate America and the DNC, decided to openly kill off 17 out of 20 candidates, and tell you that these are now your choices? Would anyone even bat an eyelid? Would you still be arguing about who is the best of the three candidates that had survived the purge? Have we become this complacent, or this apathetic? Not one person has even criticized the actions of the DNC and Corporate media. Not one person has even made a credible argument against any of Tulsi's policies. Could it be that you are subconsciously being affected by all the smears about her?
What this woman has, above all else, is authenticity. (In his own horrible way, that's what Trump has. "Finally," people thought, "a politician who says what he's thinking, and who doesn't have to steal because he's already rich." ) Character is more important than formal platforms, which anyway are written by a bunch of PR people informed by 'focus groups'. This woman is not running for President because she is personally ambitious. She's running because she has a unique, critical insight into the most important issue facing America, and the world. The Republicans have had people with this insight -- Rand Paul, Pat Buchanan -- but they brought too much other baggage with them, and of course the Republican National Committee is just like the Democratic National Committee when it comes to trying to influence primary results -- they probably have lunch together every week and exchange tips. She's set down a marker. We must not just forget her. All her supporters from across the political spectrum should write to her and tell her to follow the strategy of her illustrious predecessor (both as a commanding officer and, hopefully, as president), U.S. Grant. Attack on the first day, get beaten back. Don't leave the battlefield. Attack on the second day. Get beaten back? Attack on the third day. Eventually the Rebels, although they are the better soldiers, will crack. No one knows the future. Never give up.
The only drawback I see with President Gabbard, is if she has to meet face to face with various representatives of the Religion of Peace. It's not their deep intuitive contempt and even hatred for women that I worry about ... just the opposite. I don't know what her exact role in Iraq was, but she probably played a critical part in sending a lot of their co-religionists off to the 72 Virgins. So I hope they won't hold that against her. Plus ... she's a Hindu. Christians are officially recognized by the Religion of Peace as 'people of the book' and we're allowed to become dhimis. But Hindus are pagans in their eyes and are, officially anyway, not accorded this kindly toleration.
Well said Good Sir...Im'a fittintahhh take my lard to bed and wake up and hope that hurrycane, hurry on away from us. Good night forum peeps
Thanks for clarifying things. My first post was the thoughts of many voters on their first encounter with Gabbard. The second one was my preferred credentials. They are not the same. There simply are certain things a 58-year-old has experienced that no 38-year-old can relate to and that matters when you're dealing with foreign heads of state in the senior category and a Congress even older. Clinton said, "I feel your pain." He was lying. I really do suffer empathy association disorder, but you have to know what the symptoms are to feel them. Now I have the chronic pains of age and abuse too. She doesn't. That matters to the mass of older voters. That's why the top 3 are over 70 and the President too. Others won votes by suffering poverty (Clinton), tragedy (Kennedy) or some other experience we could relate to. She has so little in common with most of the electorate she might never crack 10% no matter how solid her platform is. What detail put the last 4 Presidents over the top anyway? Do any of you think even one of them got elected on platform?
A thoughtful post. Yes. If she were a 65 year old 'Desert Storm' vet, with further service in Iraq, and .... let's be frank here ... a Christian... she would have five times the support she has. I don't think being female is a disqualification any more, which is a good thing. Nor is not being a pasty-white any problem. And some executive experience ... maybe a term as governor, plus some Senate time, maybe on the Armed Services committee and whatever body deals with foreign policy.... On the other hand, it didn't do Sarah Palin a huge disservice, not to have many of the qualifications for being a heartbeat away President. Let's not underestimate the good sense of the American people. (I know some of the jokes to the contrary.) For example, when Bill Clinton did what every other normal male in America would like to do with Monica Lewinsky, and the Republicans tried to destroy him with that .... they were thinking, "Oh Boy, we've got 'im now!!! Think how outraged the broad American public will be...yippie! (And also, to themselves, "That nasty little girl, doing that with Bill Clinton! I'd like to lay her over my knee and give her a good spanking!") They should have learned from 1992, when a Good War vet, a Navy pilot shot down in the Pacific, was defeated by that same Bill Clinton, who managed to avoid military service during his war. (Like the majority of rightwing pundits and political figures.) People are getting smarter @Phil. They're not as dumb as you and I were fifty years ago... the Flynn Effect formalizes this: IQ going up by 3 points every 10 years. I think we'll see more of her.
Most normal males have never given a thought to wetting a cigar in the Clinton manner, or devised a means to get sex in the workplace.
An acquaintance of mine once said that Erwin Rommel was more popular among the British than he was among the Germans. I think the attraction of this woman is that she seems pretty immune to the PC bacillus, and says what she believes. I've been on a number of liberal sites, and the disdain and even hatred for her there is astonishing.
I suspect she never thought she could get far in this race, but in 2022 Hawaii may reduce to one House seat and she'll have a huge advantage on the other incumbent. Mazie Hirono is ill and should she not complete her term Tulsi will have a head start on all opponent. In 2024 she might be the only repeat candidate for the nomination for President and start with invitations to all debates. Right now she'll have to work harder than most to get back in this race, then decide early about withdrawing to run for another House term. If I had to guess, she'll withdraw in November, making sure Harris and maybe another opponent is hopelessly damaged.
Consider We have had a very long run of 2 term presidents, Clinton, Bush, Jr., Obama. Not seen since Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. But, they were of the same party when there was virtually just one party. Cowardice and the fear of changing Presidents may be in play now. Unseating a President has become ridiculously difficult. It might be best not to waste Tulsi on 2020 and go after 2024. Y'think!? Moi Don't ize,
