"During the off-the-record dinner, Gabbard didn't take any direct shots at Clinton, one person told FOX Business. She merely laid out some of her policies, which don't easily fit in any ideological framework. The 38-year-old congresswoman is a supporter of the Second Amendment and against what she described in an interview with the New York Times as "regime change wars," though she is considered progressive on other issues such as health care. And in between bites of their expensive steak dinners, the crowd ate it up. "People thought she was great," the attendee said. "Her problem is name recognition but when you meet her she is great.". She has said many times that she will not be running as a third party candidate. What evidence can you provide that indicates she's lying? She has presented her message, at a private gathering of banking, media, and other corporate elites before. Just because her campaign does not take corporate Political Action Committee(PAC) donations, doesn't mean that she should not share her message with Corporatists as well. Most of the 20, or so, attendees are very secure, so they are not threatened by her policies, or the truth. As implied in their comments above. I am also curious, do you think that a current combat Major in the National guard, a sitting Member of Congress, with one of the highest vetted(CIA, FBI, HS, NSA) security clearances, running for the highest political office in the country, is a Russian spy and traitor? If you do then you must also believe that Barrack Obama, was not born in America, and was the Anti-Christ. Are people really this gullible and mentally vulnerable? Tulsi has stated that she will not be seeking a 5th term in congress, because she feels she can best serve the people, as their Commander-in-Chief. Not in the House of Representatives. She is devoting all her time and efforts into meeting with people all over the country, to spread her message. Unless you have been living under a rock for the last 3 years, you would know that Tulsi is trying to change the status quo, with her more progressive ideology. Name just one of her policies, that seek to maintain the social status quo? Name one of her policies that seek to maintain the corporate status quo? Glass-Steagall, Cash-Bail, Abolishing private prisons, using anti-trust laws to break up corporate monopolies, taking money out of politics, ending government spending to corporations profiting off of continuing wars? Which policies? I didn't hear your fake outrage, when Tulsi was being openly smeared with zero evidence to support it. Not a peep. No fake indignation, when her character and religion was attacked. Even when the polls were proven to have been rigged to keep her voice silent by mainstream media. Not a peep. But with every step of her preaching "truth to power", she has proven just how entrenched the status quo really is. She is trying to bring back the true power of the people, and the corporate-conditioned smear merchants, will do and say anything to keep their power. What is it about this woman that is polarizing? I just don't get it. Also, why is Tucker Carlson a White Nationalist? And, what does that have to do with Tulsi Gabbard. Oh, I get it, the fallacy of Guilt by association. So go ahead and smear away. She is fighting even for you.
No. Nobody said she was. She's a Russian asset, not a Russian spy. Those are very different things. You don't have to work directly for someone to be an asset. The Russians see her as an asset, so they back her. What? You mean a politician's character was attacked? STOP THE PRESSES! THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE! IT MUST NOT STAND! Religion? Huh? Why are you bringing in her religion? You seem to be the only one talking about it. She chose to be a Democrat so she could win in Hawaii. She's getting replaced now by a real Democrat. The Democrats win. Clinton torpedoed any third party ambitions. A FOX News gig seems to be the best option left to her. She'll fit right in, as that's her favorite network to make appearances on. She'll be the well-paid token "Democrat" who hates every other Democrat. She'd get a bigger salary if she was blonde, but she'll do well enough.
I like the Fox News gig idea, they seem to like her over there at Fox, but I would suggest she'd be better off running for governor of Hawaii. A sitting senator hasn't won the presidency since 1960, but Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all served stints as governors before winning the White House.
In ancient Greece, do you know what the crowd did to the person that proved to them, that they were being conned by a conman, conning them out of their valuables? They ridiculed him, insulted him, and eventually stoned him to death. It's good to see that the herding instinct behavior in humans, who can think only collectively, have not changed in thousands of years. An asset is any(tangible or intangible) service or product, that is owned or controlled, to produce some positive value for the owner. Since we are talking about being an asset to a foreign government, then she would be betraying her oath as a sitting Congresswoman, as well as her military oath as a senior officer in the military. This betrayal would make her a traitor. If she is owned by a foreign power, betrayed her oaths, then she is a spy. So, if you believe that Tulsi is knowingly or unknowingly, working directly or indirectly, for the Russians, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? I thought the vociferous "red scare" campaign of McCarthyism died out almost 70 years ago? We are not talking about working for a person, we are talking about working for a Country or a Foreign Government. I see people are still just as gullible as they were back then. But I concede that if people can believe that a sitting President wasn't born here, or was the anti-Christ, then people can believe anything if they hear it enough times. It is called "cognitive dissonance", and having a "confirmation bias". Generally, they are attention seekers, hiding behind the belief and the extraordinary claims, of those in authority. In this way, they don't need to apply any inductive or deductive reasoning at all. Why are people so threatened by this combat senior officer, and congresswoman? Why do they need to keep smearing the only person with the balls to stand up to the Oligarchs and Plutocrats, that are keeping all of us down? What are you all afraid of? Social Change, and a new direction in Foreign and Social Policies? Or, maybe you prefer things just the way they are? Oversimplified biased tripe, and half-truths. It is not simply attacking a politician's character. It is the blatant, and asserted campaign by Corporate America, the DNC, and Mainstream Media, trying to protect their own interests, by smearing, lying, and discrediting her campaign and her person. At least with Biden, Warren, Harris, or even Bernie, there are real facts to support attacking their campaigns or their character. But with Tulsi, there are no facts at all. Just smears, innuendoes, implications, lies, inferences, guilt by association, or calling her Hindu Religion a "non-mainstream religion" or a "cultist religion". Even her "unusual" childhood was attacked in the early months of her campaign. So, WHERE ARE THE FACTS. WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT YOU ARE OFFENDED BY? I didn't think so. You should really make an effort to do a bit more research. https://medium.com/@vamseejuluri/to...t-offensive-interviewer-and-nprs-df20b1ae9119 https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign.html https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/09/25/tulsi-gabbard-2020-democrat-candidate . But why let the truth stand in the way of a good self-serving story. HUH? The idea of the government helping people, the planet, and the environment, appeals to her more, than a government helping greedy corporations. Maybe this is why she chooses to be labeled as a Democrat. Which policies of Tulsi's do you consider are non-Democratic, or non-Progressive? What specifically makes her not a real Democrat? In fact, I think she represents everything the Democratic party use to represent. Never mind, more smears without substance. Lets also ignore all the non-Fox news outlets she has been on. Let's also ignore all of the unfounded smears and insults she receives, and must defend against, whenever she is interviewed by mainstream media outlets(MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.). Fox is just a media venue, to get her message out to a larger audience. Nothing more, nothing less. Can you imagine any intelligent person saying that, since Tulsi never denied being a Russian asset, this obviously is an admission that she is. This is almost as stupid as claiming that President Obama was an illegal President, because he only produce his short form Birth Certificate. I am learning that the old adage of, "throw enough mud on the wall....", is very true. If enough people tell you why s**t is good enough to eat, more and more people will have it on their menu. I also now suspect that the "dumbing down of America", is not really just a myth. If she was a blond...? Sexism as well?
Again, more uninformed half-truths. More Presidents have been elected President, after having served in the House of Representatives(20), than after having served as a State Governor(17). Maybe if we focus only on her policies, instead of these silly hypotheticals and distractions, that we might all can become more politically informed, and less politically divided.
That's all beside the point. The point is that Tulsi has stated she will not be seeking her seat in the House so she's all in for running for President. So what's she to do if/when she doesn't win? Does she fade into obscurity or keep her public profile high? Which one best suits her "service above self" creed? From that POV, looking ahead to 2022 and the next gubernatorial election in Hawaii with maybe filling in the gap doing a short stint on a news channel to keep herself in the public eye would be a good move for her.
Actually, only nine presidents have made it from serving in the House without also serving in the Senate. Other than Ford, who was elevated to the presidency on the resignation of Nixon, and George Bush, who was elected on the strength of Reagan's record and his own stint as VP, the most recent president who ONLY served in the House of Representatives was William McKinley, elected in 1896. I think we can rule that out as a viable means to the White House.
Why are you cherry-picking my comments? Were these 20 citizens elected Presidents of the United States, or not?, Did only nine citizens serve in the House, and the other 11 citizens not serve as members of the House, or not? Count them yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_other_offices_held Since we voted into office someone with zero military experience, and zero elected political experience, the posters comments and advice seem woefully misplaced and irrelevant. Maybe, since there have only been ONE African American citizen, should we now tell all African Americans not to bother. Since no Woman, Oriental, Indian, or Hispanic, has ever been elected as President, shall we tell them all not to bother either? Should we now start looking at their religion, height, physical features, etc., to find more determining factors? To my knowledge, there are only 3 eligibility requirements to become the President, and none of them have anything to do with the military, or any elected public office(local, state, or federal). So what exactly is the meaningful point that you are trying to make? Do you also agree in hindsight, with the poster's hypothetical, that being a State Governor, would give Tulsi more of an advantage to becoming President, than just having very good policies, good character, and good political and military experience? I don't mind honest scrutiny, but unnecessary scrutiny is just annoying, and can become confrontational.
The point I was making was to another poster. Tulsi wants to devote her entire time to her campaign. Period. If she doesn't win, then we have lost our last hope, in having anyone able to stand up against Corporate America, and is courageous enough to speak for the people. Its over, and 4 more years, of the last 60 years. The only thing that is consistent, is our whinging every 4 years. We need her now, but we have become just too cynical, too apathetic, and too dumb to see it. I pray everyday, that she or Bernie makes it. With the exception of Yang(Zero experience), all the rest are bought and paid for.
Since I was the poster who suggested she should run for governor of Hawaii, yes, I agree with him. My point was that being governor is a better option than being senator if you want to run for president. And I stand by that. Sure, there are many characteristics we can point at to decide whether or not Tulsi has a shot. For example, historically speaking, the taller candidate has won. How tall is Tulsi? Historically speaking, the candidate who smiled more has won. How often does Tulsi smile? Historically speaking, the candidate who speaks in bland generalities has won more often than the candidate who speaks about policy specifics. How much does Tulsi speak in generalities rather than specifics? I don't know what Tulsi's religion is, but it definitely could play a factor if it isn't mainstream. And then what skeletons does she have rattling around in her closet? Just one sex scandal could scuttle her chances. All these things come into play.
No, she was smeared as a Russian asset period. She is by no means a Russian asset. An Asset is something of value that you own. Where is any proof of that and where is the proof that she is being backed ? That three of here 1/4 million donors were russian? And it was not that her character was attacked, it was attacked by a clinton! If anyone outside of Trump has shown to be more devoid of character it is her. This is the 2nd time that tulsi has met with Wall street types with little stake in the MIC. I think Tulsi has laid a foundation for public service for a long time. Just because she is brave enough to go on Fox and call out Trump and be s shrill for healthcare and the environment on that bastion of regressive thought, is certainly not a criticism of her. Her willingness to call out regressivness and obstructiveness on both sides of the aisle speaks to her character. Screw Hillary, her smugness cost this country 4 years of Trump. She should be vilified for just that, never mind her foreign policy and painting of young blacks as "super criminals" and implementing 3rd strike and backing private prisons for poor people committing crimes while flying on Epstiens private jet.
Now you are just misrepresenting what I say. Where do I state, or in anyway imply, that you were NOT the poster to suggest that Tulsi run for Governor of Hawaii? Nowhere. When I told another poster("woogs" #259), that "The point I was making was to another poster", that other poster I was referring to was you. Since Tulsi is neither a Senator or a Governor, you are just standing by your own straw man. But lets just look at your crown of logic. Out of the four Governors you mention since 1960(actually since 1945 after FDR), only four governors, and former Governors were elected as President. Only two of the Governors were elected President while actually serving as governor(Clinton and Bush). And, Carter(3 years), and Reagan(7 years) were elected as President as former Governors. In 2016, no fewer than 10 current or former Governors ran for president. NONE of them came even close to winning any major-party nomination. Although, Donald Trump did pick Governor Pence as his running mate and Vice President. Maybe that should count as well? So, your master advice, is to suggest that Tulsi could improve her chances of becoming the President, if she becomes the Hawaiian Governor. Even though, only two sitting Governors have ever been elected President, in almost 75 years. I think that she is absolutely right. Why would you want to keep trying to be the voice of the people, when the people will make up anything to silence you? Why would you continue to stand up against Corporate and Political Corruption, when the people themselves fight you to embrace it? Really, can you be anymore vague and pretentious? I didn't know that how often you smile, was grounds for suspicion. "I will stop all wasteful regime-change wars on day one of my Presidency". "I will re-enter both nuclear treaties." "I will end ALL crippling sanctions, which only effect the poor civilians". "I will abolish the Private Prison System." "I will end the Cash-Bail System." Ï will re-instate Glass-Steagall." "I will break-up big tech monopolies with our anti-trust laws.". "I will end selling arms to any terrorist group, or to the countries that harbour them.". "I will bring all our troops home.". "I will end the federal prohibition on Marijuana Law.". "I will use the "war dividends" from stopping wars, and use them to help fund many social reforms(Healthcare with Choice).". "I will end the politico-corporate revolving door, by getting corporate lobbyist's money out of politics.". "I will give back the power to Congress to declare war.". Maybe you can point out which of her policies listed, is not specific? Maybe you can deposit one of her policies that is vague and general, other than simply asserting that they are? Just more smears. What is truly sad about this, is that you think this is rational. What faith anyone chooses is not up for anyone to judge. That's called religious bigotry and intolerance. In the country that I love, people are innocent, until proven guilty. I'm sure that Tulsi does have some skeletons in her closet(one divorce), but I don't assume that she does, or assert that she does. That would simply be projecting my own biases, to create my own conclusions(another straw man). Why do you think there would be a SEX scandal in her past? Or, is this a misogynistic Freudian Slip? Think you for that piece of enlightenment. We're done here.
I can't find it now, but a few months ago a read a long piece describing her upbringing in a cult. That sort of thing would hurt her as a serious candidate.
She was not brought up in a cult, that is another slander. Her father was a friend of a hare krishna leader in Hawaii. How can you even repeat something that is so untrue. She has friends in that cult to this day. If her friend was a 7th day adventist or some other radical christian sect nothing would even be said, but since she is Hindu, it is a problem.
No! The problem is she is vegan. And she is 25% Samoa ancestry. Moi Tulsi is my first choice, Trump my second. No
Socialist... (DISQUALIFIED) (however)... "D" Insurgent... (check) Refreshing... (check) HRC doesn't like... (check) From my point of view as a 'Con', much more to like about Gabbard, than her correlative spate of Communist "compatriots"... (imho)! I only perused the last couple of pages... I'm sure the above vid is linked somewhere above... - but that's OK, lol... If we're going to resort to that 'drink a beer w/ adage' of likeability... Yup, Gabbard's great for sipping a 'Mai tai' w/ under a palm tree, lol... Nonetheless, - GO Trump!
@Sahba* Consider the similarities of the Clinton - Bush Jr. - Obama Presidencies. My term is, RepubloCrats. Same foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy leaving working people to struggle harder to stay even. Looking for Not A RepubloCrat and that leaves, Gabbard and Trump. Moi No
OK Moi... so I may not have the sage repertoire of political experiences / remembrances on my side, lol... Lol... I can remember being on vacation in Bar Harbor, ME as a precocious young child, seeing a postcard on one of those rotating racks in a tourist shop - President Bill Clinton (I knew that much at the time)... He was shirtless in a fake muscle pose - My sincere question was... 'Mommy why does the President work out so much'? - Yehh, I don't go back that far Moi...
Then take my word for it. Some term them "centrist" Like we have two parties fighting for the middle Gabbard and Trump offer an alternative. Bernie did in '16, but I don't hear it now. No one "feels the Bern". Moi No
PLEASE what is "that" what reference are your making to your quote or the associated video of just spreading labels? Video. Please mark as minutes and seconds. Like one minute twenty seconds being 1:20 Gracias Moi No
Why do Conservative Republican always refer to Progressive Democrats as "Socialists"? They say this as though having socialist policies, should disqualify them from becoming a dog catcher. Clearly they don't have a clue about what socialism really is. They are conditioned to believe that Socialism is bad, and Democracy is good, just to keep us ideologically divided. News Flash, OUR SOCIETY IS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. In reality, Socialism is alive and well in America, and we love it, and use it everyday. Without socialism, our society would collapse in 24 hrs. Without our socialistic policies, our society would descend quickly into Anarchy. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America For many, it is very difficult to unlearn garbage once it is learned. Even when confronted with the truth. Did you know that there would be no police and fire departments, no military, and no CIA and FBI, without socialism. Unfortunately, there would be no wars without socialism. Tulsi is truly a rare individual. What attracts people is her infectious honesty, vulnerability, and authenticity. When you add intelligence, a current Major in the military, experience(military and political), clear viable policies, gravitas, courage, poise and statesmanship, beauty, youth, command of presence, and a once in a lifetime talent, she will certainly threaten and challenge, the fragile egos, stereotypes, and social biases of many. The more you stand out, the more scrutiny you attract. She is the only truth in a sea of lies. Her vote is a no-brainer. Once you have disqualified someone, the rest just seem irrelevant me. Her HRC has a rating among LGBTQ members of 100%. I guess honesty and authenticity may seem refreshing for many, but it should be expected by all. Also, the "Mai Tai" cocktail was invented at a Tiki Restaurant in Oakland in the 40's. It means, "out of this world"(Maita'i roa a'e,). It is certainly more Tahitian, Polynesian, and Caribbean, than it is Hawaiian. I would vote for anyone that promises to stop all wasteful wars, all crippling sanctions, getting money out of politics, and rejoining both nuclear treaties, then to vote for someone on the brink of ending this planet. Someone who had no human empathy in his private life, and has no human empathy in his political life. This is the typical behavior pattern of any narcissistic sociopath. Someone who is seen as a total joke, by every leader of every country on the planet. Someone with so little respect and support, that a war with Iran would become a coalition of the few(Saudi Arabia, and maybe Israel). https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/us-saudi-arabia-allies-oil-attacks-1500738 https://www.vox.com/world/2019/7/8/18693297/us-iran-war-trump-nuclear-iraq And, you would do it again? Amazing the power of compartmentalization.
