Jump to content
mikey mikey

Tulsi Gabbard 2020

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, lisae said:

You also don't seem to have acknowledged that Cosmo said he'll vote for Gabbard if she's the candidate. 

I will answer this on the offchance you addressed it to me and not Moorpork.

I totally acknowledge that Cosmo would hold his nose and vote for Gabbard rather than Trump.

I commend him on his consistency.

OTOH, that plethora of "left" candidates seems to be the object of much whittling from "moderate liberals".

So just to remind folks just what is at stake:

Quote

LESS THAN A month after Democrats — many of them running on “Medicare for All” — won back control of the House of Representatives in November, the top health policy aide to then-prospective House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Blue Cross Blue Shield executives and assured them that party leadership had strong reservations about single-payer health care and was more focused on lowering drug prices, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05/nancy-pelosi-medicare-for-all/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know what's at stake. Have a look at the article I posted on the AOC thread.

Nobody here has even suggested supporting a candidate who isn't in favour of Medicare for All. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I read that article on the AOC with great interest, cheers.

I am not wary of anybody here supporting a candidate who isn't in favour of Medicare for all, in fact the Corporate Dems all support this publicly while the story I posted above shows that support might only be lip-service: i.e  'both a public and a private position'.

I am afraid of the DNC lumping the electorate with another Hobson's Choice by using its corporate cohorts in the MSM to smear Gabbard/Sanders/Warren and anybody else opposing their pre-determined Candidate, even Mr. Yang.

I think that forcing the Democrat voters to support Harris/Booker/Gillibrand will backfire and either give the US another 4 years of Trump or it will create a Macron like figure that will lead to even more division and unrest.

Edited by mikey mikey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabbard isn't socialist, though. I haven't been able to find any examples of her using that word, let alone describing herself or her policies that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lisae said:

Gabbard isn't socialist, though. I haven't been able to find any examples of her using that word, let alone describing herself or her policies that way.

No, but she is firmly against neocon interventionism and would make a great partner with Warren and/or Berinie as POTUS/Vice President.

Her domestic policies so far include:

1. anti TTP

"The TPP agreement will benefit Wall Street banks and multinational corporations on the backs of hard-working Americans, and it will increase existing threats to our environment...If it contains the same noxious provisions we suspected it would, I will do all I can to defeat the TPP when it comes before Congress for a final up-or-down vote."

I'm going to give that a Leftward tick.

2. Glass-Steagall Act, pro-reintroduction

“It’s time to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act. Big banks should not be allowed to gamble with your life savings & your kid’s college fund”

I'm going to give that a Leftward tick.

3. Minimum wage 

Increase to 15 dollars

I'm going to give that a Leftward tick (begrudgingly)

4. Health care

pro Universal Health Care

I'm going to give that a Leftward tick 

5. Education

Community college tuition-free for all Americans while making all four-year colleges tuition-free for students with an annual family income of $125,000 or less

I'm going to give that a Leftward tick (begrudgingly)

Oh and she left the chairmanship of the DNC so she could support self-proclaimed Socialist Bernie Sanders

So far she's somewhere between Bernie and Warren, I reckon.

Left enough to receive massive hate from the Corporate Democrats.

Edited by mikey mikey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lisae said:

I don't like it as a concept, but when I listen to him speak it feels like a way of marketing socialist ideas without using the "s" word. 

His parents are from Taiwan, though. He could be strongly anti-communist. I have no real feeling for what his angle is. 

But I like the idea of a UBI being championed during a US presidential campaign (at least during the primaries). 

Remember, the Chinese experience with communism is famine during the Great Leap Forward and the purges of the Cultural Revolution. Now we have a Leninist vanguard party running an authoritarian capitalist state that rains hell on ethnic minorities like the Tibetans and the Uighurs. I would not hold anti-communism against anyone of Taiwanese origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Gabbard on TV this morning (Morning Joe) and definitely think better of her from hearing her directly. Highlights

1. On Syria, she refused to call Assad either an enemy or an adversary. However it was not in a fawning or a "he's a sonovabitch, but he's our SOB" (e.g., Rummy-Saddam handshake) kind of way. She looks at it through the lens of American interests and where it is or is not worth putting American lives and treasure on the table. And as Mikey^2 has posted, she is for fighting terrorism, against wars of regime change.

2. She did answer yes when asked if Russia is an adversary, and acknowledged Russian interference in US elections as fact.

3. She muffed the question about Russian support to her campaign, attacking the reporting. She would have been better off saying "Russkies gonna Russkie, I'm not encouraging this in any way, and I would hope the people and media listen to what I have to say on the issues rather than creating another diversion like Hillary's email" 

4. She criticized Trump for withdrawing from the INF. She does seem to make reducing nuclear threat a centerpiece of her campaign, and that's one of my key litmus tests.

5. She mentioned the erroneous attack warning in Hawaii in motivating anti-nuclear stance. she was skeptical of Trump's ability to come to deal with North Korea as withdrawing from the Iran deal undermines the idea that he can be trusted by Kim's government.

So in general I like her ideas on foreign policy, nothing else was discussed at all so I don't know what her positions on climate change, economic inequality, and racism/sexism/homophobia. I am not concerned about the Russians, but apparently David Duke supports her (although she has disavowed that support), so I'd like to know what he sees in her from his racist perspective. Not a dealbreaker at this point, just a concern.

I am currently leaning towards Warren because she has both the skill and drive to address economic inequality. I like what she has accomplished with consumer finance and I like her wealth tax proposal.

The dark horse I'm watching is Jay Inslee, who if he runs will be centering his campaign around climate change (that's all I know, I haven't heard detail, just saw one brief story on that). Bernie and Biden are too old, more's the pity on the former. Gillibrand has a minus with me for shoving Franken out of the Senate before the Ethics Committee could adjudicate the case. Harris has a good campaign theme and spiel, I'd like to have a more in depth view of what kind of policy she would support.

Klobuchar I'm keeping an eye on for purely tactical reasons -- Americans tend to react to the last president on a stylistic level -- no drama Obama after Bush's follies, a white racist after the first black president. After 4 years of Trump's bullying Minnesota Nice might be looking really good to the American electorate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, USS Stark said:

Remember, the Chinese experience with communism is famine during the Great Leap Forward and the purges of the Cultural Revolution. Now we have a Leninist vanguard party running an authoritarian capitalist state that rains hell on ethnic minorities like the Tibetans and the Uighurs. I would not hold anti-communism against anyone of Taiwanese origin.

Absolutely. I just thought that might be a reason why Yang would prefer to brand his policies as a different kind of capitalism, rather than anything to do with socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lisae said:

Gabbard isn't socialist, though. I haven't been able to find any examples of her using that word, let alone describing herself or her policies that way.

She's much more of a moderate, albeit an rough-cut one.  Which makes it surprising our far leftists are suddenly pushing for her. She'll torture and send bombs flying.  Her reluctance to invade Venezuela is not written in stone, either.  And socially she cut her teeth opposing gay marriage.  The whole thread is weird.  The dissonance between her hawkish position on the WOT and her reluctance to intervene could very easily skew right if she were elected.  Or become otherwise impossible to sustain.  The WOT is absolutely hand-in-glove with interventionism and invasion.  BF, for example, opposes US intervention in Syria but supports Russian intervention there.  You can't expect to start dropping bombs and renditioning people without getting pushed into invading the places they come from.  The pressure to do so is overwhelming. And she comes from the DOT.  Those are her people.

Ultimately, if she's the best we've got to counter Trump then she'll need a lot of help.  But I strongly suspect she's gearing up to take a chair in the administration, not actually win. If she wanted to win she needed to a hell of a lot more ground work in key states, just as Obama did in Illinois and the industrial heartland.  Instead she seems content hanging out in Hawaii with an odd assortment of views that don't really line up with any constituency.  And her delivery tends to be stiff and official.  She sounds like an officer at a briefing. 

Quote

There’s just one problem: Although she has voiced support for

progressive positions like Medicare for all and free college tuition, her actual record skews moderate. She has broken from her party on votes to increase restrictions on refugees and weaken gun control. She has introduced legislation supported by GOP donor Sheldon Adelson and interviewed for a possible position in Trump’s Cabinet. She has a -0.280 DW-Nominate score, which measures politicians on a scale from -1 (most liberal) to 1 (most conservative) based on their congressional voting records. That made her more conservative than 83 percent of House Democrats in the 115th Congress.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-tulsi-gabbard-could-win-the-2020-democratic-nomination/

Edited by Cosmoline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Tulsi Gabbard Is Driving The MSM Bat Shit Crazy

When Tulsi Gabbard announced her plans to run in the 2020 presidential election, I predicted that it would disrupt war propaganda narratives and force a much-needed conversation about US interventionism, but I didn’t realize that it would happen so quickly, so ubiquitously, and so explosively. Gabbard officially began her campaign for president a mere three days ago, and already she’s become the front line upon which the debate about US warmongering is happening. Even if you oppose Gabbard’s run for the presidency, this should be self-evident to you by now.

This dynamic became more apparent than ever today in Gabbard’s appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, hosted by spouses Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. It should here be noted since we’re talking about war propaganda that in 2009 Scarborough turned down an easy run for the US Senate because he decided that he could have more influence on public policy as the host of Morning Joe than he could as one of 100 US senators, which tells you everything you need to know about why I focus more on US mass media propaganda than I do on US politics. It should also be noted that Brzezinski is the daughter of the late Carter administration cold warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose influential ideas about US world domination, arming extremist factions to advance US interests, and hawkish agendas against Russia continue to infect US foreign policy to this day. Mika is part of a political dynasty, with both brothers being US political insiders as well.

So if you’ve ever wondered how outlets like MSNBC keep everyone on message and fully in alignment with the US war machine’s agendas, there’s a good insight into how. Combine that with the way they stock their punditry lineup with US intelligence community insiders and fire any pundit who refuses to toe the military-industrial complex line, and it’s not hard to see how they’ve developed such a tight echo chamber of hostility toward any resistance to US interventionism. Which explains what we’re about to discuss next.

Morning Joe’s pile-on against Gabbard began when the subject of Syria came up, and panelist Kasie Hunt instantly began losing her shit.

“Do you think Assad is our enemy?” Hunt interrupted during Gabbard’s response to a question about her meeting with Syria’s president in 2017, her voice and face both strained with emotion.

“Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States,” Gabbard replied.

“What do you say to Democratic voters who watched you go over there, and what do you say to military members who have been deployed repeatedly in Syria pushing back against Assad?” Hunt replied, somehow believing that US soldiers are in Syria fighting against the Syrian government, which would probably come as a shock to the troops who’ve been told that they are there to defeat ISIS.

Journalist Rania Khalek summed up this insanity perfectly, tweeting, “The journalist interrogating Tulsi seems to believe that US forces in Syria are fighting Assad. Tulsi corrects her, says those troops were deployed there to fight ISIS. These people don’t even know what’s happening in the places they want the US to occupy.”

“This is such an embarrassing look at the state of corporate American regime media,” tweeted journalist Max Blumenthal. “@kasie doesn’t know the most basic facts about Syria and along with the smug co-hosts, doesn’t care to learn.”

And it didn’t get any better from there. After Gabbard took some time to explain to a professional cable news reporter the basic fundamentals of the US military’s official involvement in Syria, Scarborough interjected to ask if Assad isn’t an enemy, would Gabbard at least concede that he is “an adversary of the United States.”

Whatever the fuck that means. What Assad is is the leader of a sovereign nation which has nothing to do with the United States and isn’t taking anything from or harming the United States in any way.

Scarborough and Gabbard went back and forth about this stupid, nonsensical question before Brzezinski interjected to ask “So what would you say he is to the United States? If you cannot say that he’s an adversary or an enemy, what is Assad to the U.S.? What is the word?”

“You can describe it however you want to describe it,” Gabbard responded, explaining that whether a nation is adversarial or not comes down to whether or not they are working against US interests.

“Are Assad’s interests aligned with ours?” asked Hunt.

“What are Assad’s interests?” Gabbard countered.

“Assad seems interested primarily in the slaughter of his own people,” Hunt replied with a straight face.

“Survival,” Scarborough interjected, trying to save his colleague some embarrassment with a less insane response to the question of Assad’s interests.

Other bat shit crazy questions Gabbard was asked during her appearance include the following:

“You know there are people who will watch this have heard your previous comments who will wonder, what’s going on here? Why you met with Assad, why it looks like you were very cozy with Assad and why you’ve sort of taken his side in this argument. What would you say to that?”

“Do you think that Assad is a good person?”

“Your hometown paper said that you should focus on your job and talked about your presidential campaign being in disarray. How would you respond to your hometown paper?”

“Any idea why David Duke came out and supported you?”

“There have been reports that that Russian apparatus that interfered in 2016 is potentially trying to help your campaign. Why do you think that is?”

“Have you met with any Russians over the past several years?”

Gabbard shoved back against the various accusations of alignment with Trump, Putin and Assad, asserting correctly that those lines are only being used to smear anyone who voices an objection to endless war and insane nuclear escalations. She pushed back particularly hard on Kasie Hunt’s reference to the obscene NBC smear piece which cited the discredited narrative control firm New Knowledge to paint Gabbard as a favorite of the Kremlin, claiming that the article has been thoroughly debunked (and it has).

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/nbc-news-to-claim-russia-supports-tulsi-gabbard-relies-on-firm-just-caught-fabricating-russia-data-for-the-democratic-party/

After the show, still unable to contain herself, Hunt jumped onto Twitter to share the discredited NBC smear piece, writing, “Here is @NBCNews’ excellent reporting on the Russian machine that now appears to be boosting Tulsi Gabbard.”

Hunt then followed up with a link to an RT article which she captioned with an outright lie: “Here is the ‘debunking’ of the NBC News report from RT, the Russian state media. You tell me which you think is more credible.”

I say that Hunt is lying because the RT article that she shared to falsely claim that the only objection to NBC’s smear piece came from Russia explicitly names an Intercept article by American journalist Glenn Greenwald, upon which the RT article is based and which does indeed thoroughly discredit the NBC smear piece. If Hunt had read the article that she shared, she necessarily would have know that, so she was either lying about the nature of the article she shared or lying about knowing what was in it.

So that was nuts. We can expect to see a whole, whole lot more of this as the plutocratic media works overtime to undermine Gabbard’s message in order to keep her from disrupting establishment war narratives, and I’m pleased as punch to see Gabbard firing back and calling them out for the sleazy war propagandists that they are. Her presidential campaign is shaking the foundations of the establishment narrative control matrix more than anything else that’s going on right now, so it looks like writing about these embarrassing mass media debacles she’s been provoking may be a big part of my job in the coming months.

Military interventionism is by far the most depraved and destructive aspect of the US-centralized power establishment, and it is also the most lucrative and strategically crucial, which is why so much energy is poured into ensuring that the American people don’t use the power of their numbers to force that interventionism to end. Anyone who throws a monkey wrench in the works of this propaganda machine is going to be subjected to a tremendous amount of smears, and I’m glad to see Gabbard fighting back against those smears. From personal experience I know that smear campaigns must be fought against ferociously, because the only alternative is to allow your detractors to control the narrative about you, which as far as your message goes is the same as allowing them to control you. It’s not fun, it’s not clean, but it’s necessary.

The narrative control war keeps getting hotter and hotter, ladies and gentlemen. Buckle up.

 

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/tulsi-gabbard-is-driving-the-msm-bat-shit-crazy-e4c3bfc312a1

Edited by Beltaine fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cosmoline said:

She's much more of a moderate, albeit an rough-cut one. 

Well it's the first time I have seen a "moderate" (ex-GOP) such as yourself dismiss a candidate as "not Left enough".

Quote

Which makes it surprising our far leftists are suddenly pushing for her.

Actually that has been proven to be false. Do a quick search on Tulsi on this forum and you will see that "far leftists" like myself have been talking about her for a long time.

Quote

She'll torture and send bombs flying. 

Have you seen any evidence to suggest that she condones torture?

Quote

Her reluctance to invade Venezuela is not written in stone, either. 

Can you name one candidate more clearly opposed to intervention in Syria? One major American politician even?

Quote

And socially she cut her teeth opposing gay marriage. 

SInce then, 

In 2012, Gabbard said that she believed same-sex marriage should be legalized throughout the United States.[197] She credited her tours of duty in the Middle East for her change in views.[21][198] Her subsequent support of LGBTQ issues included co-sponsoring The Equality Act. The Human Rights Campaign gave her a score of 100 for her votes during the 115th Congress, with scores of 88 and 92 for the previous two sessions, respectively.[199] She has opposed both the Defense of Marriage Act and a proposed state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a woman and a man.[200] She cosponsored the Respect for Marriage Act after her election to Congress,[201] as she had promised to do during her campaign.[202] Gabbard also asked Hawaii state legislators "to pass legislation that will ensure fair and equal treatment for all of Hawaii's citizens".[201] In June 2015, she issued a statement supporting Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, arguing that the United States was not a theocracy.[203][204][205]

 

Let's not forget that Hillary and Obama also opposed gay marraige initially.

Quote

The dissonance between her hawkish position on the WOT and her reluctance to intervene could very easily skew right if she were elected.

That has been explained further up thread, and USS Stark made it clear also in his comments. Can you acknowledge this?

Quote

Ultimately, if she's the best we've got to counter Trump then she'll need a lot of help. 

I think that Corprate Democrats would rather see Trump in office than Gabbard.

Quote

 And her delivery tends to be stiff and official.  She sounds like an officer at a briefing. 

Compared to our current Used Car Salesman style POTUS, I'll take it,

I find her refreshingly statesmanlike, but YMMV

Edited by mikey mikey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She has not distanced herself from her Assad visit. It will either doom her or separate her. Not seeing her gain much traction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J H said:

She has not distanced herself from her Assad visit. It will either doom her or separate her. Not seeing her gain much traction.

Why should it? 

That just sounds like wishful thinking. Who are you rooting for JH: Harris, Booker or Gillibrand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Americans are not so wary of our interventionist ways whether it is admitted or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm, groupthink FTW,  or more likely: continued failure (see Bernie The Loser (BTL) and his myopic groupthink supporters)

Edited by Snorky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×