This is how a real leader motivates people to unite. This is what intelligence, confidence, and genuine authenticity looks like. This is a person who clearly commands respect, every time she enters the room. This is a person, who inspires the mind, every time she utters a word. Even after all the lies and smears she has endured from corporate America, there are no signs of insecurity or weakness. Her strength comes from the people, and it is only growing and growing. , and, . There are no policy views that any rational person can dispute, or any character flaws that can be observed. There is not even a skeletons in her closet. There is only truth, integrity, honesty, and the real deal. I would be proud as an American, to have this truly gifted and talented human being, represent my country as its President. Warren and Buttigieg have been shielded from the hard probing questions(soft questions only) by the established media, to keep their public image artificially contrived and fake. Biden is also a member of the corporate protected class. Please don't let money dictate how we think. Just look at her record in Congress. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tulsi_gabbard/412532 . Then look at her character and experience. Especially, all the things she has sacrificed, or committed to, for her principles of "service before self". So every time you whinge about one of many social issues, just remember, "It doesn't have to be this way". The truth is right in front of your eyes now. It is time to stop letting history keep repeating itself. It is time to demonstrate what true Democracy really means.
Some thoughts about Tulsi Gabbard. First ... she has conjured up a new political category: the liberal warmonger and Red-baiter! No sooner had the American Right shed those clothes, than certain liberals eagerly pulled them on. : Second ... You have to have priorities. 'Foreign policy', if it's wrong, has the chance to wreck everything else: economic or political reforms at home -- whether 'Left' or 'Right' -- will be derailed by a stupid foreign policy that gets us into a big war, or even by one that keeps us eternally engaged in a series of 'little' ones, bleeding endless quantities of money to support various criminal regimes around the world. Major Gabbard gets it right on foreign policy, and being right on this question is infinitely more important than being right on the minimum wage. But why would being right on this issue make her attractive to conservatives? For the past 70 years, American conservatives have been reflexively hawkish in foreign policy. This is not a criticism. We don't live in liberal kum-bai-yah land, with nice foreign governments that just want to live in harmony with us. Force rules the world. BUT .... just acknowledging this obvious fact -- a facet of the general conservative pessimism regarding human nature -- is not the end of the story. It doesn't say anything about whether we should give billions of dollars to the Pakistani military, or have troops in Somalia, or threaten Cuba. Events of the last thirty years, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, have shown us a world much more complicated than the Evil Communists vs the Good Free World, and it's taken conservatives a long time -- spurred on by events of the last fifteen years -- to start having a re-think on foreign policy, and to begin to move away from the automatic "send in the Marines" reflex. Donald Trump understood this change and was able to appeal to it, without committing himself to a full-blown new approach to foreign policy (which he is probably mentally incapable of apprehending anyway). It's a shame he has not followed through on it, but remember he is surrounded by people who are committed to keeping the Cold War going. And that's why some of us conservatives like Major Gabbard. She's speaking sense on foreign policy, but she's not a soft-headed leftist. I suppose her credentials might be a bit better in our view if she had personally strangled an Al Queda operative with her own hands, but she'll do. And she has good instincts on the cancer of Political Correctness. (These instincts are just old-fashioned American liberalism, which, Iregret to report, was always better on questions of civil liberties and the right to express unpopular political opinions than American conservatism, which has come to an understanding of their importance rather late.) On economics and social policy, she's pretty much a conventional Democrat. But we can live with conventional Democrats. In fact, we have, for over a century. (To any conservatives here who are old enough to remember John F Kennedy -- c'mon, was he really the enemy?) It's the new madness that has overtaken the mainstream Democratic Party leaders that is alarming. Elizabeth Warren embracing the spirit of Michael Brown???? Put it this way: you can unwind socialism. The British did it, and so did the Swedes, not to mention the Russians and Chinese. But the social entropy of political correctness does permanent damage. I personally don't like the Hindu nationalism of her father, and I would be interested in her personal views about it, but it's not a major issue. She doesn't 'seem' like a racial/religious nationalist, and I'll bet she's just being the dutiful daughter and not contradicting daddy on this question. In any case, whatever role, if any, she will play in shaping the destiny of the nation will be seen, not this year, but in the years to come. Finally, a question to which I do not have an answer: how can conservatives who don't want any more of the 'military-socialism' of endless wars and interventionist foreign policy, and liberals who agree with us on this issue, work together to get what we want, given that we have strong disagreements on other things? If we have to vote in an election, it's going to be hard for either of us to vote for someone of the opposite camp, even if we agree with that person on the all-important foreign policy issue. You're voting on a whole package of positions, many of which you may oppose. On the other hand, petitions, laws, congressional resolutions expressing a sense of the House ... things which are single-issue -- there we could agree. So we need to think about how to elevate these tactics to a more prominent position in American politics than they have now. In other words, we need to think about how to do politics outside of elections. An example would be a carefully-worded 'Petition for a Sensible Foreign Policy', co-sponsored by prominent individuals from the the Left and the Right (such as George Soros, and the surviving Koch brother).
Firstly, her father (Mike Gabbard), is Samoan, and a Member/Lector at the Saint Jude Catholic Church. So he is not, ever been, or could ever be a Hindi(not Hindu) Nationalists. Mike is still a practicing Catholic.https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/67633/mike-gabbard . It is Tulsi's mother (Carol Gabbard), who is a German American, who happens to practice the Hindu religion. Secondly, Tulsi's beliefs (Gaudiya Valshnavism), and practices (Bhakti Yoga), which is a mild form of the Hindu religion, IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I will say, that if her beliefs produce the kind of character she has, then it is a religion that deserves a second look. We all must decide the source of our informed opinions. Will they be shaped by the establishment or the anti-establishment? Will they be shaped by what we can see, as being authentic or inauthentic? Or, will they be shaped by what is principled, or by what is just pandering? We must decide between the corporate's bandwagon, or the people's bandwagon. Most people agree that it will take a candidate that can appeal to moderates, centrists, liberals, progressives, conservatives, and democrats, to ever hope to beat Trump. Yet, when the candidate that does all of these things, they still will choose a candidate who is less innate and non-progressive. Maybe we just crave our disappointments more, than we crave the solutions to our disappointments.
I think there is more to the Hindu nationalist thing than you may think. Look here: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/ However, it appears to me, after reading that article, that American Hindus are simply behaving like most people around the world, and putting their 'identify-group' (or tribe) first. Since 'white racism' has been a taboo belief in America for two generations, most white Americans, Left or Right, do not understand that most people in most countries identify with their tribal group first -- usually this is a literally a 'race', ie a genetically-similar community, but sometimes it's a religion. White Americans have been strongly discouraged from doing this for the last sixty or so years, and with good reason. But this will probably change, as the new 'progressive' movement insists on pushing identity politics, and trying to make whites ashamed of having developed modern civilization. It's one of the key tasks of people who believe in liberal democracy to try to prevent this race-awareness from arising among whites, because it will inevitably have very bad consequences. The only serious weapon against it is (inclusive) old-fashioned American patriotism, which the Left also hates and which liberals and moderates are ashamed of. So it's going to be an uphill battle. In the meantime, of course American Hindus are going to support Tulsi,on tribal grounds alone, and of course she will, if she's wise, not be too strident in denouncing the Hindu lynchers of Muslims in India, since most Americans know little and could care even less about what happens to nonwhite foreigners, especially Muslims. So she needs to steer a middle course, and basically not say much of anything. Vague statements affirming universal brotherhood everywhere should do it. The reaction of American Muslims will be interesting, as they will have a severe conflict. If they don't know it now, they will become aware of her Hindu nationalist supporters. So on the one hand, they should oppose her. But on the other, her foreign policy stance aligns with the interests of militant Muslims, who want to see the advance of their co-religionists oversees unhindered by American military (or other) intervention. Hopefully, they'll be smart enough to see that she has to do what they have to do: tell the naive American liberals what they want to hear. And in truth, she's probably a lot more sincere about not being a Hindu nationalist than many Muslims are about not being Islamists, as her faith is less central to her identity than theirs is. So I don't think we should worry about it. However, the reaction of Christian fundamentalists will probably be negative. I can just see semi-literate Southern preachers putting up images of Kali on their church Powerpoint displays and explaining, that, no, that's not Hilary Clinton, that's a creature worshipped by this woman who wants to become president. VOTE FOR ME!!!!
Blue Establishment an the big money interests that run the Blue media have waged a huge propaganda campaign against Tulsi. This stinks to high heaven of election meddling - a kind of meddling that pales in comparison to the Russian Facebook ads. Comparing the two is akin to comparing a raindrop to a Hurricane .. the Russian Facebook ads being the raindrop. Some of these big money interests include foreign actors - but, even if this were not the case - it would still be a huge problem. When you have an MSM that is neither free nor fair - there is no such thing as a functional democratic process.
And you are not alone ! https://reason.com/2019/10/30/tulsi-gabbard-rising-in-new-hampshire-thanks-to-republican-support/ Isn't it interesting that the candidate who has the best chance with the other side - is hated by her own party. I contend that the last election was decided by the anti Establishment crowd - which was huge on both sides of the fence last election. I also contend that the AE movement has gotten much bigger since the last election and will be more of a factor this election. Hardcore Blue is going to vote Blue - regardless of the Candidate - Hardcore Red is going to vote Red -regardless of the candidate. Where the pendulum lands will be decided by the AE middle - and Tulsi is one of the few (on either side) with demonstrable AE Street Cred.
One might make the same biased arguments against a Born Again Christian, Catholic, etc. and what nots. That is just such decoration on the hidden cake beneath. Regardless of Tulsi Gabbard not being a McDonald's Hamburger fan the question is basically Is Ms. Gabbard a "Good" person regardless of religious distinction. Good Person as in ethics, morality, living them, and not bought. And I agree with her as the only peace candidate Her Vegan choices are most repulsive to me. But, for all her other qualities, I can forgive her.
Doug, you made the comment, that you had some concerns about Tulsi's father's Hindu Nationalistic influence over Tulsi's (and her sister's) Hindu belief. Since Tulsi's father is a Samoan Catholic Lector and Member of his Catholic Church, this "straw man" is just more groundless, baseless, and fact-less fear mongering. It is no different than all the other guilt by association accusations, that Tulsi has to endure. Especially, since her father is NOT EVEN A PRACTICING HINDU. She has no control of who donates to her campaign, or why. So, if 105 people(out of 95,000 donors) and their families donate to Tulsi's campaign, and they are affiliated with a Hindu Nationalist organization, this does not mean that because she is a practicing Hindu, that she is also a Hindu Nationalists. This is just spreading more disinformation, insinuations, and guilt by association. Your reference is also bias and presents only half-truths. Does your reference mention that out of the 1044 people killed in the Gujarat Riots(2002), that 254 of the people also killed, were Hindus? Does the article mention why the riots started in the first place? Does it mention the 59 Hindu men, women, and children, that were killed in the Godhra Train Burning incident, by a mob of 1500 Muslims? Does it even mention that Modi(then chief minister), was exonerated by the Indian Supreme Court of any wrongdoings. Of course not. Here is a more objective reference, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning . It is always wise to assume, that anything you are told by mainstream media about other sovereign countries, are just lies and spin, to hide our true economic interests. We must do our own research, or go to the countries and find out for ourselves. . Tulsi believes in non-interventionism into the affairs of other sovereign countries. She believes in due diligence, before committing lives, or the taking of lives. She does not believe in the lies about WMD, dictators gassing their own people because they just feel like it, the sanctioning of countries and killing its poor to force obedience, financing terrorists to overthrow governments, fake humanitarian claims, or the pimping out of our military to a country that breeds and funds terrorism around the world. Tulsi believes in concentrating on addressing the social reforms we need NOW. Tulsi does not believe in being the world's policeman, or spreading American Imperialism all over the globe. This is not what America is about. I am not interested in her taste in music, clothing, reading materials, or what her personal feelings and beliefs are. I'm only interested in her actions, her record, her experience, and her integrity/loyalty. There is no doubt that she is by far, the best candidate in the field, by any level of measurement. She will be the only candidate, that will provide the sea-change of reforms(money out of politics), that this country so desperately need. Tulsi is also the co-chair of the India Caucus in Congress. Therefore, her interest in Modi cannot be separated. It is her job. So what evidence can you deposit, that would justify your concerns, that Tulsi would be a Hindu Nationalist leaning threat? And, even if she were, how would this affect the safety and security of this country? She was also a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Arms Service Committee, therefore it is her job to visit dictators and others, in search of the truth. How many more lives need to be sacrificed because of the lies that we are told? Even Trump welcomed Modi. But when Tulsi welcomed him, and congratulated him for winning his election, the knives came out. What about the obvious Israeli/Palestine human rights abuses by Israel? Why doesn't America support the two States solution? Where are the knives and true outrage for these real human rights abuses? If our religious leaders are so insecure and hypocritical, to preach religious tolerance, but practice religious intolerance, then they will also be exposed just like mainstream media and Corporate America. Is it possible that American Hindus might support Tulsi, because she wants to stop all wars, save money, address social issues, stop legalized bribery in politics, and stand up against Corporate America? Or, can't you see past identity politics? What exactly is her foreign policy stance that, "...aligns with the interests of militant Muslims, who want to see the advance of their co-religionists oversees unhindered by American military (or other) intervention.". You mean the policy of keeping America from attacking, overthrowing, or interfering into the governments of sovereign countries all over the world? I think every country in the world would agree with her(except Israel and Saudi Arabia who pimp us out). I also can't see southern ministers, putting up the true image of Jesus Christ as well. There is no scientific basis for race. It is just a made-up label. The concept of race has been used to define and divide people. But race(there is only four) is not grounded in genetics. There is only ONE race, which was started in Ethiopia(Homo sapiens idaltu), and is the father of all races. All other races are a result of mutations to the DNA(0.0001% changes). Your race is by chance, NOT BY CHOICE. If you are Black, you can't be a White Nationalist, or Supremist. If you are White, you can't be a Black Nationalist. It is the height of arrogance, elitism, egoism, insecurity, bigotry, and ignorance, to champion any cause that that is based only on chance. Whatever your race is, was only by chance, not by choice. I also don't see any rational person questioning Tulsi's patriotism and loyalty. This is just disturbing on so many different levels. Do you really think that White Americans, are solely responsible for our modern civilization? Do you really think that these White Nationalist cowardly lynch mob terrorists, should not feel any well-deserved sense of shame for their racial atrocities? It makes me feel ashamed of my own race. They have not only destroyed lives, but have created a lingering fear and unconscious resentment, that still exist in present day generations of minorities. And, it will take many more generations to eliminate. How many White nationalist still applaud whenever, an unarmed, half-naked Black American, dies in police custody, or is killed in his living room playing a video game? Or, is shot over 30 times? The only reason White Supremist or Nationalist(NOT WHITE AMERICANS) are discouraged from committing more racial atrocities, is because there are more law enforcement members of their group, than racist members. Remember, Hitler did exactly the same thing to fuel hatred and control. He first saw the economic problem, blamed someone else for it, fed into the Arian egos that they are the chosen one being screwed by some other inferiors, and that these are our enemies. It is the same blueprint that will always keep us all divided and indefinitely ignorant. We are all better than this.
Her religion is a huge issue. Hinduism almost totally precludes Heaven as unattainable. In other words, she believes we are stuck here to reincarnate likely forever in our deepening pile of garbage. Whether that matters for holding office? I think it does, and so I wouldn't vote for her. Believe what you want.
What does ones perspective on the attainability of heaven - have to do with whether or not someone would be good in office ? What an illogical and irrational way to choose a leader. Now - if someone believes in some kind of apocalyptic narrative - that there is some war between good and evil among the principalities and the people of Earth - that is a different story. Someone like this should never having their finger on the nuclear button. This is why Pence should never have his finger on the button - he may think he is part of God's plan to destroy a third of the earth by fire. The same is true of some Muslim who thinks they are being a Martyr for Allah - destroying the infidel by fire - and rewarded with 72 virgins after the fact.
Yes, that's basically my attitude. Thomas Babbington Macaulay -- a hugely under-valued 19th Century thinker -- addressed this issue -- people's formal allegiances vs how they actually behave in real life -- in a marvellous essay, The Civil Disabilities of the Jews, back when Jews in Britain were restricted in many ways from taking part in society. I urge everyone to click on the title and read the essay. I wouldn't be quite so optimistic today as Macaulay was then, about the ability of modern society to overcome the illiberal strictures of a religion on its adherents -- every case has to be examined concretely -- but in the case of Major Gabbard, I am not at all worried about Hindu nationalism.
When the left talks about religion and why they are against it or wont vote for it, why does every other religion except Muslim Islam mentioned. Which is the most vile and debased of them all. Christians dont perform genital mutilatons on girls to keep them Pure oh man the list just goes on and on
You have to understand that there are two ways to interpret and act on the religion one believes in. One is to take it seriously, literally. If you have someone who does that, then, yes, we had better be careful of giving them power if their religion can be interpreted as calling for mass murder. But for most of us, certainly for the overwhelming majority of Christians in the US today, religion is just a sort of pleasant social glue, an excuse for nice people to meet together and reinforce the normal, benign, kindly social attitudes that we want everyone to have. All the frightening stuff, or demands that would keep you from enjoying yourself, is not taken seriously. That's why we regularly get the satisfying stories of self-righteous preachers getting caught in bed with the wives (or children) of their flock. Mr Pence is neither going to turn the other cheek to our enemies, nor treat them like God commanded the Jews to treat the Amelikites. [""And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Sam 15:1‑3)"] (Maybe a few really fanatical Zionists take this stuff seriously, but no one else does ... thank God.) There are, at this moment history, a rather larger proportion of Muslims who find it convenient to embrace the genocidal aspects of their religion, so we need not be complacent here. This will fade away over time, however. But we're safe with Mr Pence. It's not his nominal religion, it's the Cold War Foreign Policy establishment in Washington who would be giving him advice that's the problem. And they're probably mainly liberal agnostics.
Having been part of this "overwhelming Christian Majority" for all of my life - I understand well that the average Christian is not some wing nut. Pence on the other hand - is not the "average". Pence is the MVP - "mandatory vagina penetration" candidate. Pence is not content to have the freedom to hold a particular religious belief - Pence is of the crowd who wants to force religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law). You are correct when you state that a large proportion of Muslims are Islamist's - depends on the nation but - its large. So what is an Islamist ? An Islamist is someone who believes in Sharia Law - that religious belief should be force on people through physical violence (Law). The Islamist has no respect for individual liberty - the principles on which this nation was founded. How is this different than Pence - and the extremist faction of the religious right to which he belongs ? Biden - during his debate with Ryan on abortion - said something intelligent. He said "I am a Catholic - and as per my religious belief I am personally against abortion - but, I do not believe in forcing my religious beliefs on others". The cold war foreign policy establishment in Washington is neither all liberal - nor all agnostic. Most of them are Christian as are most people in the US. With respect to a literal interpretation of the Bible - Pence is of that crowd as is Cruz .. as is Ben Carson. Ben has stated publicly that Darwin's theory of Evolution was inspired by non other than "Satan". Cruz not only showed up - but spoke at this "Religious Liberties" conference - a major theme of which was when to start rounding up gay people and executing them.
@TrulyEnlightened: You make a number of points, to which I'll try to reply later. Just a couple of things I should clear up. I agree with you about Major Gabbard. It's my impression of her that she is not a Hindu nationalist, and if she were President, would not have dual loyalties. That doesn't mean she wouldn't feel sympathy with fellow Hindus in India -- that's natural, and not a problem. As for the riots in Gujarat where the Indian police stood aside and let Muslims be lynched. In all the cases of ethnic conflict, there are atrocities on all sides. Muslims are a minority in India, and so most of the atrocities will be against them. But that's no reason to whitewash their side either. Same for all the other many, many, many places around the world where tribal groups murder each other. Diversity means bloodshed, that's just a sad fact of life. America has been a kind of experiment trying to show that his is not necssarily always true, that a nation can be built out of different tribal groups, around a set of ideas that transcends tribal self-interest. It's worked pretty well, with some horrible exceptions. The Left is now, with some success, attempting to destroy that experiment -- that's the whole idea of "identity politics". The next decade or two will see if they succeed. As for whites and civilization. "Civilization" -- I won't define it, you know it when you see it -- has been achieved by several cultures: the peoples of India, of China, of Central and South America, of the Middle East, and of Europe. But its growth is not linear, for some reason. We see great civilizations begin, make progress, and then stagnate and fall into backwardness. (This is not counting the ones which were destroyed from the outside by stronger civilizations, such as the ones in Meso-america and Peru.) Thus the Chinese, probably the most civilized people of all. Other peoples remain in the Stone Age, living in mud huts. Why the difference? Beats me, probaby something to do with geography, the weather, natural resources, and just plain accident. If anyone has read an explanation, let me know. Europeans, when their civilization began to take off again after the Middle Ages, somehow hit on some 'killer apps' that allowed them to dominate the world. AND their invention/discovery of capitalism meant that their domination of other countries was not just sucking out their wealth, but building the institutions that eventually allowed their victims to kick out the Europeans and start on the path to modern civilization as well. Slowly, unevenly, differently in different places, but the trend is clear. Is there some special virtue to Europeans that allowed them, and them alone, to start mankind on the path to modernity? Genes? Christianity? I don't know. I haven't read anything that has convinced me that, say, the Chinese couldn't have done it, in time. Or the Indians. Or the Arabs. The industrial revolution, science, the market, the rule of law .... I don't think these are inherent European-only traits. But maybe they are -- I don't really care, actually. We're on our way, the whole human race now, and that's what counts. Anyone who knows anything about the experience of non-whites in the US knows that there were many horror stories -- it's not good when one tribe has all the power. Humans are a nasty species -- killer apes, just without fur and tails. You can match anything the illiterate slopeheaded whites of Mississippi did to Blacks, with what Blacks do to each other now in Africa, what Sinhalese do to Tamils in Sri Lanka, what Croats did to Serbs and vice versa and both did to Muslims in Yugoslavia, what American Indians did to each other and to white settlers, what Blacks in South Africa today do to white farmers, etc etc etc etc etc. Torture-porn galore, available on every continent, with starring roles as both perpetrator and victim for every race and religion. What I object to is the attempt by politically-motivated people to make one particular group feel especially guilty. It's just a scam to extort money, and generally to wage race warfare. What I want to see is for our species to transcend all this crap, to embrace modernity, modern science, democracy. (Yes, we cannot jump over our own heads ... it's a slow, step-by-step process. Each generation moves foward a few inches.) But ... eventually we're going to the stars. To hell with the people who want to drag us back to the caves.
I don't live in the US and don't follow American politics as closely as I should. If Pence really is a fanatical Christian fundamentalist who would force all of us to go to Church on Sundays or whatever, than that's pretty bad. How did he end up the VP of someone like Trump, who is a depraved sinner??? I think he's just your standard Republican hypocrite, and that's fine with me, but if anyone has real proof that he really believes what he says, I'd like to see it. Look -- in the US, to get the Republican nomination, you have to say that you love Jesus and are against abortion and will do whatever Israel tells you to do. You just have to say it, you don't have to really mean it, and everyone knows that. When all those Christian fundamentalists voted for Mr Trump, they showed that they -- like everyone else -- put their pocketbooks, their material interests, their way of life -- first. The rest is just nice verbiage. And good for them. They did what everyone does. (Liberals are exactly the same: they are oh-so-pious about loving Blacks, but they don't want their kids to go to Black-majority schools, and wouldn't dream of living in a Black area.) It's how the game is played. It's the way the game is played.
You would not vote for someone because their religion? And if you think the human race had it better 1000 years ago than they do now, I don't know what to say.
The Christian Right backed Trump because they hold that Abortion is a much greater sin than adultery. If you equate abortion to murder, you rather have anyone in the white house than a murderer.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” by Richard Dawkins. It is ironic that you said, "Believe what you want.", and then disqualify her because of her religious belief. But to disqualify her because she believes in reincarnation, and not a heaven or a hell, is just irrational. Both concepts are just make-believe, and culture specific. There are 4,200 different religions on this planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions , All, or some of them can't be right, but everyone of them can be wrong. By definition there can only be ONE God. Also, both Tulsi's belief and yours are monotheistic. But her religion does preach tolerance and egalitarianism, while yours teaches intolerance and elitism. I know which one I'd choose, if I were religious. Like one of the posters stated, look at the person's character, their policies, and their experience. Only then are you able to make an informed decision. The Religion certainly does not the woman make.
Ahh ... you're enlightened. Let me light my pipe and contemplate this. Okay, done. You raise a good point *puff, puff*. As a Hindu, Tulsi would likely have no reservations about pushing the button about which you post. She is already familiar with death and suffering. Could be that that's her hidden agenda, though I kind of doubt it. *puff, puff ...* What? What are you talking about?
The Judaic God? You're talking about the Judaic God? There are undeniable similarities there with Hindu god(s). If Jews came out of Egypt, why so many similarities between Mosaic God and Eastern gods? Hmm ... In no way do I suggest that she can't run, do I? I'm telling you she won't be elected. That you think that is somehow my fault is way beyond irrational. It is pathological something or other. What an over-educated, presumptuous ass you are! Have a cigar! Huh ... well I'll be ding-donged. I did not know that. (Is that the smiling emoticon? I don't have my glasses on.)
