Tulsi's running!!

Of course I can defend Trump. We quickly abandon the founding principles and republicans ideals when democrats take office.

Tulsi is a defender of homosexual conversion therapy. Sure she is better on that.

 

You guys always find excuse to continue that stupid game, your allegiance to Medical Cartel is not funny.
Universal Health Care will reduce amount of money spent on Health Care not to increase it.
Medicare for all has nothing to do with VA or Federal rule.

If Republicans want to win, all they have to do is lift a ban on access to Medicare.

 

Obama has won first term because he did not support special rights for gays.
Tulsi also can also win by promoting normal marriage.

 

At this stage, it would seem she could be viable.

 

I like her, but as we saw in the last election the Dems are very much against having candidates with integrity. The DNC prefers crooks like Hillary.

 

She already has too much going against her. The primary will chew her up and spit her out.

 

I'm sure you would know.

 

Too young to have watched a dem primary before?

 

Wow ... what a poor defense Attacking the Dems is not a defense of Trump.

While I agree 100% that Blue Establishment typically abandons the founding principles and the ideals of Classical Liberalism/Republicanism when they get power - the exact same thing is true of Red Establishment. This however has nothing to do with a defense of Trump.

Prove your claim that Tulsi is a defender of homosexual conversion therapy and how is this "better" ?

 

Someone could jump on the social media revolution and wind up an alternative to this two party domination.

 

Yup, she may have a harder time with the corporate wing of her own party than with whatever the GOP throw at her once the wreckage from Trump becomes apparent even to the elephants.

 

Agreed, very attractive but here's the thing - smart too!

 

The farming community keeps shrinking because it has been taken over by corporations who are hardly self-sufficient, Davy Crockett types living off the land. The corporate industrial factory-based torture industry is fully supported and embraced by the Republican who roll over to get their tummies rubbed by corporate lobbyists of corporate agriculture and evil empires like Monsanto.

 

The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is as hostile to progressives as conservatives are. They give mouth service to being progressive then rule on the right - which is why the Republican mantra of far-left liberal Democrats is so hilarious.

Now that some real far-left liberal Democrats are coming out of the woodwork, the billionaires lobbies in the Dem wings are nervous.

Course it all depends whether the progressives can hold their ground or whether they cave to the power structure as well.

We will see. Should be an interesting election in 2020.

 

No argument there. If Hillary runs again I don't think she would stand a chance in the primaries but that does not mean the corporate wing of the party would not find a way to sabotage the young progressives.

I have already heard from supposed progressive friends I keep in touch with in the US that they just wish AOC and others would shut up and let the adults have the floor because they have no chance of winning. I can see the same pattern arising as happened to Bernie.

Still, if we can get young people voting and engaged, who knows?

 

Here is Tulsi's platform:

She's running on creating affordable housing,campaign finance reform, civil liberties, criminal justice reform, COFA migration reform, ending the war in Syria, GLBT rights, gun control, GMO labeling among other progressive ideas.

Not going to go into detail as you can click the links and get it from her campaign website:

https://www.votetulsi.com/vision

You right-wingers hate her already don't you

 

My universal health care plan is as follows. I am responsible for my own health and well being. I have a financial risk should I become ill, or otherwise infirm. I can indemnify myself with insurance to make affording the cost of future medical needs should they arise. I may be given the option of helping my family by including them on my indemnification. I expect that as my risk changes, my cost of providing this indemnification will also change. I recognize that the cost of indemnity will then likely change and Ill have to plan for it.

I allow for the possibility that my indemnification might be offered as a benefit to me as a condition of employment. I further have no expectation though that this will be the only method from which I can indemnify myself. I might enter into a long term agreement then that provides an annuity from which an indemnification might draw from for the future, and that this is a contract that is available to me to enter into.

I also recognize that there will be those who's employment is no longer a possibility, and who will have not planned adequately for their long term coverage. For those folks, I expect that there will large throngs of folks who will look at the wealth of others, and determine that the collective "we" have sufficient funds from which we can be extorted to extend indemnification to those folks as well. I recognize that in this country, the massive trust fund that has been created to this extent then be available for those who no longer are employed because of either having retired, or otherwise having no ability to work.

Which, basically, is the solution we have today. I continue to advocate for this because it allows for the possibility that if I don't wish to indemnify myself, then I might not, at my own risk. I do not accept that the larger society then has a responsibility to indemnify me on my behalf due to my resistance to cover my own indemnification. I expect that should I not wish to do so, I am still actively contributing to the trust fund for all, and should suffer no ill effects from not having otherwise maintained indemnification during my employable years.

That is my plan. I find it flexible, and my only complaint is that indemnification cannot transcend state lines because of the state monopolies that have been granted (by democrats) over the years and their insidious insurance boards. I find that removal then of those restrictions would be well advised, and should be something future national policy would eliminate.

What then doesn't work are those who feel that they aren't willing to contribute to their own service and be accountable for their own health and well being. There exist today a large portion of the nation who find that not having a plan, or otherwise depending on the rest of us for their care is vastly more convenient to them than being responsible themselves. And yet, we provide (if you listen to the NEA leadership) high quality education for all in our nation that provides the basis from which all in our nation can become successful to the extent that they could and can provide for themselves.

And yet, through legislative cooption, liberal policy makers have uniformly created artificial carve outs to shelter folks of their choosing from these requirements. Single stay at home moms being the most obvious. So, the basis of uninsured, was built. In search of a solution, that being the dismantling of the personal responsibility model for everyone else because the "cost" of sustaining health services for those who have been exempted is "too much" to bare So, again, liberal/progressive folk look longingly at the wealth of others as a "cure" for those folks they themselves are responsible for creating.

 

Tulsi isn't an establishment liberal. The DNC and the idiot voters will never pick her as the primary Dem. However, I wish her the best. She's certainly better than any other Dem.

I would venture a guess that liberals would rather have Oprah than a real hero.

 

I dunno. Lot of folks arent keen on her view of lgbt.

 

Negative. I have threads from 2015 and 2016 from when I said she should be the Democrat front runner. Too bad the left wanted Hillary for whatever stupid reason.

 

Translation...
Affordable housing... the use of eminent domain to take land from those to build low quality domiciles for the poor so they don't clutter the side walks or otherwise get in front of the automated gates in front of rich Hawaiians homes (mostly democrats)...
Campaign Finance reform... Allowing unions of public employees to extort more money from them to transfer to their democratic legislators in a more efficient manner.
Civil liberties The elimination of the 2nd, 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments because they are super inconvenient to tyranny...
GLBT rights The irony here is that Tulsi doesn't actually believe in them, or their civil liberties, nor does she actually believe that the LGBT community deserves them.
Gun Control.. see above.
And last, but not least...
GMO labeling of food... Because somehow moonbeam believes that food can be "crafted" or "curated" and doesn't actually understand mundane things like weeds, or insects, or other pests that otherwise limit how much food actually gets produced.

Given her actual polity and ideology, her viability inside of the traditional Democratic party seems, well, limited. Inside of the NDP, her prospects are obviously unlimited.

I think her previous hate speech will keep her off of any national ballots...

 

Yep, she ‘evolved’ from her traditional marriage stance and calling gay activists ‘extremists’.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/tulsi-gabbard-dems-what-do-you-think.503379/

This thread ^ is one I made a couple years ago telling Dems to run Tulsi.

I'm a rightwinger, FYI

 

Did she announce her candidacy in Spanish ?

I'm seeing that seems to be the popular way for Democrats to announce they are running for President.

 

As of 2016 her 'evolution' was that she didn't see any reason to push her personal views in politics. She still (apparently?) views gay marriage as 'extreme' but (i guess?) wont try to oppose/reverse it.

I dont think shes a threat to lgbt rights, but I dont see the left embracing her.