Yup! https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/456026-gabbard-reaches-donor-threshold-for-fall-debates I have to give that campaign more money. She is getting some attacks from the Left though. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/...gHSxPRHZKBFXh49DFqxPYT3oiXmwkl1LQmMb5HclanEoE This story is irked with her for her stance on Islam and that she is no pacifist. She wants out of regime change wars as she feels they are bad for America but is not stating concern for the countries being bombed. She favors fast strikes, such as the one the killed Bin Laden instead. She also is alleged to be anti Islam.
I would. Voted for Obama in '08 and he lied to me. Voted for Trump on promise to get out of Afghanistan and . . . Moi's primary issue is a "Peace Candidate". The media tries to knock it but, the total idea somehow is communicated. There is no other "Peace Candidate"! Talking to Assad = = = So what. Witness how "they" try repeatedly to make an issue where none exists. After how many questions after so many years. Last I heard, Tulsi is accusing MSNBC of taking their questions from the Kamala campaign. Not hard to believe after what we witnessed with the Hillary campaign 4 years ago. Si ! ?
What do you mean she has not put out her message, I don't think you have been listening. And end to armed foreign intervention without a declaration of war. Paper ballot backups for federal elections. a government sponsored health insurance option. An End to cash bail. A end to private prisons. A secure border. Prosecute a war on terror. End coal, use the savings from the mid east on infrastructure. Free community college, feds pay 1/2 states pay the other 1/2. A repeal of Trumps tax cuts on the top 10%. legalize pot, decriminalize drug use.
I live abroad and don't vote in American elections, although I have come back to the US on vacation and helped out in some, supporting the Republican candidate. After a lot of reflection, and very very reluctantly, I would have voted for Hillary in the last election, as the candidate least likely to get us into a war. She was/is a hardline cold warrior but a predictable one. But I would certainly support Tulsi over Trump if that were the choice in the next election, unless something happened to change things dramatically -- for example, Trump making a Tulsi-like turn that was believable in foreign poiicy.
I should also say, that her domestic program is not important compared to her helping us shake off the chains of empire. And the reason is, so long as we have to maintain a huge network of overseas bases -- is it 400? -- and be everywhere, so long as we have this huge global responsibility on us, it's going to be more difficult for the US to break up. And we need to break up -- new, Progressive 'woke' America, and old small-c conservative America -- so that we can go our separate ways politically, Then the 'Old Republic' part, if it wants to, can undo anything it doesn't like about the domestic changes Tulsi or other Democrats have caused. But we've got to have an amicable divorce and before we do that, we need to rid ourselves of foreign entanglements.
Not in my experience... like I said, they generally condemn people in the blink of an eye without knowing much about them at all. Or sometimes, they create an image of people that isn't even true..."all the left and Dems are crazy Marxist socialists", etc. It just seems odd that they give Tulsi a pass on all of her leftist positions.
I don't think all Dems are "crazy Marxists." I have friends who are Democrats and I do think they all have a hard time not injecting politics into every conversation, and I do think it is TDS, a rage at being so wrong about the 2016 election. I can talk politics or not talk politics. Some of my friends passionately disagree with my views and I with theirs, so there is no mileage in talking about it, as neither of us are going to change the other's mind.
You are right about 1. and 2. I've been watching her for several years now. She is very impressive. IMHO, she is the only Democrat running who would make a good president. Incidentally, the article you quoted called her a "former soldier". Last I new, she was still serving in the HI National Guard as a Major. I agree with her on Syria, staying out of middle eastern wars, and her message of unification rather than division by "identity". She is very intelligent and articulate. And she thinks independently. My "dog in the fight" is that my son fought in Iraq and nearly died in an IED explosion. I know the Dems won't nominate her, so I'll vote for Trump. I don't necessarily agree with Tulsi on all things, but I think she could make a good president ... perhaps a very good president.
Not a chance. She may not make it through all the debates. Ultimately, the nominee is going to Biden, Bernie, or Warren. But mark my words ... Gabbard's time will come.
I do not want her to be president but admire her serious and well informed manner and believe she needs to be a republican. Hawaii is a damned nest of Democrats so she is forced to be a Democrat or lose.
Hawaii doesn't need a bunch of bigoted old white men around kissing trump's butt...Not now...Not ever
I once was a stout very bigoted Democrat. I see this all over this forum in the Democrats posting here. My daughter lives there and her fate is in the Democrats hands. Fortunately she is not political and makes her own way. Just like a Republican.
She also claims that the US is supporting AQ ?? She also supports Medicare for All ?? She wants to end the war on drugs and legalize everything ?? She does not support border wall and advocates for a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally ?? Becareful what you wish for. https://www.tulsi2020.com/ The problem is that the only D's that appear to have some common sense and integrity are under 2% in the polls so won't be around much longer. And have you noticed that all the D's vote together like lemmings hurling themselves over a cliff over and over again ??
I've watched all the debates so far. Bernie and Warren both come off as angry and wanting to fight ..... all the time. Not a good look. Biden, I think, is too old and it shows. He's leading the polls now but has only one way to go .... down. Tulsi took down Harris and I don't see her recovering from that. At first I was worried that Tulsi was a one trick pony touting her veteran status and her anti-regime-change war stance. She has had limited speaking time, but is showing that she is putting together a domestic program, too. I don't fully agree with her, but she seems genuine, is unflappable when challenged and is one of the few politicians that I would trust to not be a sell-out. She is probably the only candidate that could begin ratcheting down the polarization and gridlock that has infected Washington for too long. She touts herself as a true patriot that will work for all Americans and yes, I believe she would. Right now the Democrat establishment is completely against her so she has an uphill battle. She has gotten enough individual donors to qualify for the next debates, but hasn't gotten the required polling numbers. Strange since she's getting so much attention. Something doesn't add up here. Looks like the DNC wants to squash her candidacy and the media seems to be aiding in that. I hope she makes it until primary season when the voters can make their voices heard.
Shes hindu, those dont exactly get along with muslims in general for the last 500years. I would be suprised if she wasnt anti-islam
Although of course everyone's mind is focussed on the next election, always, we should take a moment to step back and look ahead ten or twenty years. I remember the Goldwater vs Johnson campaign in '64. My radical friends and I joked that the choice was between "a kook or a crook". Goldwater was, as one poster here would no doubt have put it, a "joke". Twelve hundred psychiatrists answered a poll, saying that Goldwater was mentally unfit to be President -- something their professional association later ruled to be unethical, since they had not examined him personally. (See the 'Goldwater Rule'). What they really meant was that they did not like his libertarian-conservative politics and his aggressive Cold War stance. He went down to a massive defeat, and everyone thought that from then on, the only possible Republican candidate for President would have to be in the Democrat-light Eisenhower mold. Sixteen years later Ronald Reagan was elected President. The United States has been on a war footing for nearly eighty years, hot wars punctuating the eternal Cold one. Whole generations of scholars, politicians, military men, and ordinary voters have grown up thinking that it's perfectly normal to have hundreds of military bases abroad, to have an "Africa Command" [an oxymoron], to spend 15-20% of the Federal Budget on the military, to spend a trillion -- yes, a trillion -- dollars on bringing liberal democracy to the warring tribes of Iraq and Afghanisan. So of course, the idea that all of this is unnecessary, harmful ... anyone voicing that idea will look like 'a joke', or a traitor, or an anti-Semite or a Russian/Chinese pawn. Expect to see every single one of these appelations brought out and applied to Major Gabbard, plus a few we haven't thought of yet. And you can be sure that there are half a dozen research teams looking at every hour of her past personal and professional history, interviewing anyone who might have had a grudge against her, digging into the political views of her family (I think her father leans towards an unpleasant form of Hindu nationalism for India). It's going to take a long time to change things. There are all sorts of tricky problems involved in doing so: How do we make sure we do remain militarily invulnerable? (Nowadays, this means keeping at the forefront of technology). How do we guarantee the security of Israel? (no proposal that doesn't have a plausible plan for doing this will survive in the US of today, don't kid yourself); How do we keep faith with long-term allies? How do we guarantee the employment of people who have worked in our military-industrial complex? Most importantly, what should be our long-term strategy for advancing democracy in the world?( because that is still a desirable goal and in fact in the interests of the US). We live in shrinking, globalizing world and we cannot get out of that. Major Gabbard has just begun this conversation. Hopefully, people in both parties, on both sides of the Left/Right divide, will take it up.
