I'm not a Democrat or a liberal, but ... dear God, what a breath of fresh air! I know the DNC and mainstream media and Google will bury her, but ... for a brief moment, a politician you can actually listen to, who believes what she's saying. This publication, put out by a group of ex-Marxists who went Libertarian (I kid you not), makes some very good points about her.
Vile Corrupt Prosecutor Scum Kamala Harris Campaign Suggests Tulsi Gabbard is Russian Operative After She Destroys Kamala on Debate Stage Tulsi did what our "woke media" wouldn't, namely, ask Harris why she kept innocent men on death row. https://twitter.com/morganisawizard/status/1156752830331592705 … Dirty Kamala Breaks Out Russian Smear Against Tulsi: Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)’s campaign press secretary suggested Russia was behind Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) after she landed an effective blow on Harris’ record as a prosecutor during the Democrat debates on Wednesday night. Her press secretary, Ian Sams, tweeted shortly after the attack an NBC News article from February 2019 claiming the “Russian propaganda machine” was promoting Gabbard: “Reporters writing their stories with eyes on the modern-day assignment desk of Twitter, read this: ‘The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat,’” he tweeted. He later retweeted his tweet. Kamala had nothing when confronted about her career as a crooked California prosecutor.
The good news is that Tulsi exposed Harris as a fraud, both in the facts she exposed and Harris petulant response, during and after the debate. The bad news it solidified Biden' grip on the corporate wing.
I like Tulsi also we are talking about the DNC here..... corrupt as can be. They will find a way to make whoever they want the nominee.
Trump supporters are funny. There is so much about Tulsi that they should absolutely hate. It makes zero sense that they show so much support for her. On the other hand, I guess it makes perfect "sense". Tulsi Gabbard cites US arms sales to Saudi Arabia in falsely claiming Donald Trump supports al-Qaida https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...gabbard-cites-us-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-fal/
I'm not a Trump supporter and cannot speak for them, but I suspect there are two things they find attractive about her, which was also part of Trump's initial appeal: 1. Authenticity. When she speaks you get the feeling that she actually believes what she is saying, rather than making a statement which her advisors, after studying focus-group responses, have told her will reap the maximum number of votes, and, 2. She is not a captive of the Washington foreign policy Deep State consensus/Saudi Arabian money/AIPAC -- she's not going to send our kids off to fight someone else's wars. And, unlike so many Democratic and Republican politicians, she actually knows what war is, having been in one and still being a serving officer. And while her domestic policy is standard-Democratic, as I keep saying, many social conservatives are economic liberals. My Republican Texas relatives -- my personal focus group -- were absolutely loyal Democrats until about 1970. And, contrary to the comfortable belief that Lee Atwater (the real one) made them change, they changed because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Democrats were no longer putting the interest of the country and its ordinary people first. I don't think that all of them will go for Tulsi, because some of them are now Christian Zionists, but it will be interesting to see how the issues she raises are handled on the Republican side.
Unlike Bernie, if they screw Tulsi, she will go third party. She's a warrior, beautiful and fearless. One of our best! But, the rest of the weirdos: New York’s Senator Kirsten Gillibrand whose entire campaign is based on equal rights for women’ said: “The first thing I’m going to do as president is I am going to Clorox the Oval Office.” Gillibrand’s priority made me wonder why she believes a woman’s primary role was doing housework. And after she cleans the oval office will she take in people’s laundry and make some sammiches? Kirsten shouldn’t worry anyway she’s not going to be elected. Weird Lines From CNN’s Democratic Debates That Nobody Is Covering.
Tulsi is the only chance the left has. So I am hoping the democrat party smear machine crushes her because I still want Trump to win.
What is false about it? He told both Russia and syria not to attack the Al queda Stronghold. What do you make of that?
Well my point is simply in regard to Tulsi, her total anti-Trump stance, her many Democratic positions, etc. It's just odd that they give her support when normally they condemn any Dem without even blinking an eye or knowing anything about them.
WaPo Publishes Gabbard Smear Piece Filled With Blatant Lies Whoever controls the narrative controls the world, and shameless war propagandists like Josh Rogin are the attack dogs of establishment narrative control... “Gabbard asserts that the United States (not Assad) is responsible for the death and destruction in Syria, that the Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised” Complete, brazen, whole-cloth lie from lying sack of crap, Rogin. If you click the hyperlink he alleges supports his claim that Gabbard asserts “Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised,” you come to a 2015 tweet by the congresswoman which reads, “Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.” You can agree or disagree with Gabbard’s position that the US should be participating in airstrikes against al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria, but there’s no way you can possibly interpret her acceptance of Russia doing so to be anywhere remotely like “praise” for “airstrikes on civilians”. There is simply no way to represent the content of her tweet that way without knowingly lying about what you think it says. The only way Rogin’s claim could be anything resembling truthful would be if “al-Qaeda” and “civilians” meant the same thing. Obviously this is not the case, so Rogin can only be knowingly lying. “That bias, combined with her long record of defending the Assad regime and parroting its propaganda, form the basis for the assertion Gabbard has ‘embraced and been an apologist for’ Assad, as Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) said Wednesday post-debate on CNN.”. Gabbard has no record whatsoever of “defending the Assad regime”. This is a lie. There exist copious amounts of quotes by Gabbard opposing US regime change interventionism in Syria and voicing skepticism of the narratives used to promote this interventionism, but there are no quotes anywhere in which she claims Assad is a nice person or that he hasn’t done bad things. If such quotes existed, Rogin would have included them in his smear piece. He did not. All he can do is lie about their existence. This is just a smear intended to delegitimize diplomatic engagement. “Claiming that politicians are ‘defending’ objectionable rulers they meet with, in pursuit of achieving some alternative to war, is a tired trope that has been frequently used throughout history to discredit diplomatic engagement,” Tracey wrote. “As Gabbard told me in an interview shortly after returning from Syria: ‘The reason why I decided to take this meeting on this trip was because if we profess to care about the Syrian people — if we really truly care about ending their suffering and ending this war — then we should be ready to meet with anyone if there is a chance that that meeting and that conversation could help to bring about an end to this war.’” FDR met with and allied with Stalin, who murdered of millions, and yet FDR met with him repeatedly and even formed an alliance with him in order to defeat Hitler. I don't hear the Left bitching about that. Gabbard has been remarkably consistent in explaining her position that she opposes US regime change interventionism in Syria because US regime change interventionism is reliably disastrous. This isn’t “defending” anyone, nor is it “parroting propaganda”. It’s an indisputable, thoroughly established fact.
You know, there's one thing -- about the only thing -- to be said for old age: you have lived through a lot of different political periods, and after a while, you realize the wisdom of Ecclesiastes, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." When I was young, it was foam-flecked rightwingers doing this to liberals. Quotes out of context, sometimes outright invention. But ... although it works for a while, and no doubt impresses the credulous, at some point people wise up. If meeting with horrible dictators and treating them as if they were, however unfortunately, the actual rulers of their country was a crime ... then, as Hamlet said, who should 'scape whipping? One of my favorite photos and quotes is of Saint Jimmy Carter praising the Shah of Iran as "an island of stability". Well, it's what governments do.
But first John Bolton has got to go. I propose landing him by submarine on the coast of Iran on a mission to sabotage their nuclear reactors. He has always regretted that he was unfortunately not able to serve his country as a young man during the Vietnam War ... now's his chance!
It's interesting, isn't it? I was in an exchange in another thread about her and after trying a couple of times to get a list of which of her policies they like, I got nothing. I certainly don't dislike her, but she hasn't put forth much of a message. And she failed miserably in the debate. Of course, CNN is being blamed for not giving her time, but she had a way of wrestling more time by putting forth ideas that could be discussed or refuted. She didn't do that. Rookie. Her time may come in the future, but she has a lot of learning to do first.
It's an interesting paradox, I admit, all us rightwing Republican racists and sexists going for a brownskinned Hindu woman. But here's how at least one conservative thinks: Her instincts are good. She's anti-PC as well as being anti-endless-foreign wars. As for domestic policies, as I'll say for the nineteenth time, a lot of ordinary social conservatives are economic liberals. They're not the ones who staff the conservative think tanks and donate millions to Republican candidates -- they're the little guys, the ones maybe whose families used to vote Democratic. They're not against Medicare, or Social Security, and not necessarily against sensible extensions of such programs. They're definitely not against sensible infrastructure spending. But, on the really big issue, foreign policy, they understand this: you can back out of sociaiism, so long as you remain a democracy. The United Kingdom did it, and so did Sweden and other European countries. But you can't back out of a war. She's anti-war, but Major Gabbard, with her Iraq Campaign Medal, is not a squishy naive peacenik. She would maintain American military strength, just not squander it trying to bring LBGTxyz liberation to Absurdistan. A President Tulsi, ideally with a Republican -- but not a war-loving Republican -- Congress, would do a lot to lower our risk of more unwinnable crazy wars in the Middle East to satisfy the Saudis and the Israelis. If her Presidency brought more unwanted socialism to the US, that's something that a later generation can undo. They can't undo or do anything if they come home in body bags.
Thank you for providing substance to your support. I think she'd make an excellent SOD or another related position. With that, she could gain the experience needed for a future run. I'm not against her, I just don't think she's ready to lead the country.
If a Democrat is to win in 2020, I'll take her. Maybe Bernie. If Bernie wins he destroys the Democratic party for 100 years.
You may be right. There is a lot to being a successful leader that probably can't be taught in books. LBJ had tons of experience before he became President and it made him a very effective one, in terms of getting his program through. The tricky thing will be, keeping her Democratic base happy, or not unhappy, while appealing to non-Democratic voters. That's going to be difficult. If you look at her domestic program, you will find things that conservatived don't like, for instance, re-instating the Federal Ban on scary-looking rifles (called 'assault rifles'). But you don't get everything you want in politics, and, more importantly, .... there are things which are done, and not said. .... there are things which are said, and not done.
