This is very true. It is unfortunate that the stereotypic persona of what a politician should look like or behave, is created by mainstream media, Hollywood, and corporate America. How many Arabs and Muslims anchor Fox News? It is sad that honesty is based on how well you can fit into this stereotypic political caricature. This disingenuous promotion of theatre, only allows for higher ratings to satisfy corporate interests, and the DNC donors. We have become so use to the same staged and packaged platitudes, that when someone comes along that is not acting, and has a practical message, we can't tell the difference. It is indeed her character that make her clearly stand out above the pack. Just as Trump made his candidates seem pompous, Tulsi makes the other candidates(except Bernie and Yang) seem fake and insincere.
Tulsi's making far too much sense. Time for the DNC to grab the torches and pitchforks and start yelling "Burn the witch!"
It was the one thing I really didn't like about Ted Cruz... his hardline rightwing politics were fine by me, but ... he seemed insincere. Especially the religious stuff ... it seemed cooly calculated to appeal to the Christian element. But I think many of them were too smart to buy it, and instead went for Trump. I know many people on the Left say this just shows how hypocritical they are, but in fact I believe it shows how politically sophisticated they are ... they know it's easy to fake piety ... there is even an episode in the Bible about the man who makes a big point of praying in public. Anyway, the most important question facing the American nation in the coming period is foreign policy: whatever we think about China and Russia and Iran ... we have to break the habit of assuming that it's our job to get involved, militarily, in the quarrels of other countries. The sensible Right and the sensible Left have to agree to disagree about all the other important issues we have differences on, and work out ways to co operate on this very important issue, the way Soros and Koch are co operating.
"One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House of Representative districts have intelligence, State Department or National Security Council backgrounds." From the article "Deep Blue State: Why are Democrats Fielding So Many ‘ex-CIA’ Candidates?" Did we already have one CIA Director become the President of the United States with H. Bush and 250,000 Latin Americans buried in mass graves many of whom were professing Catholic Christians? Did you see the fake "Classical Liberal" Dave Rubin who is now a faked converted "Conservative" (read that as fascist) interviewing Tulsi Gabbard playing a fake Democratic? The internet fascist propaganda narrative is that idealistic Liberal Dave Rubin finally abdicated his occult progressive views and is now an enlightened conservative that logic has lead to White Supremacy and Patriarchy. This emotional story of spiritual enlightenment is given credibility by the fake Democratic Tulsi Gabbard who seeks to become a member of the Trump Washington D.C. Mafioso-fascist house of ill repute.
I didn't follow this. Is it your argument that Tulsi Gabbard is part of a giant conspiracy ... which evidently includes all Democrats as well as Republicans ... in which everyone is actually a White Supremacist fascist CIA puppet, but some of them pretend to be progressives?
If she has strong appeal on the left I'm not seeing it since she's polling in the single digits. I see no Democratic interest in her "character."
The problem is that the Democrats of all persuasions are desperate to unseat Trump, so electability is their main criterion, and if they want an 'anti-establishment' candidate they already have Bernie. Tulsi doesn't appear electable at the moment. The Democratic base is actually, most of them, quite amenable to a sensible non-interventionist foreign policy, even more than the Republican base is. Tulsi's problem there is just that they don't think she can win. And I suppose some of them were offended by her 'kinetic solution' to that woman from California.
What other candidate could carry all the Hillary States, and some from Rocky Mountain and Midwest States. I do not see any candidate in the line up that could do that. Certainly not Biden who couldn't reliably carry all the Western Hillary States. Lots of voters in those middle Red States will identify positively about Tulsi's military service. And I don't see Tulsi as a failure to carry all Hillary States. What Democrats would be upset enough about her or a policy and would not vote for her. No Baggage! How bad does the DNC want to defeat Trump? Not bad enough to put up their best candidate for the job.
This is exactly what corporate America wants you to think. Think about it. What other combat candidate has been smeared with being a Modi sympathizer, an Assad Apologist, a Putin Puppet, a spy supported by the Russian Politburo, belonging to a religious cult, an oddball, secretly hates the LGBTQ community, not to be trusted, having special powers to control us, a conservative in disguise, hated by her own party, and portrayed as an isolationist that would turn her back on the rest of the world? This concerted DNC campaign of blatant debunked lies, personal mischaracterizations, smear and hit pieces, attacks on her loyalty and her message, were to make sure that her message is tainted by these lies. Think about it. If these hit pieces, smears and lies, are seen and heard everyday, over the internet, mainstream media(print, tv, and radio), some of it will stick. And, people will begin to think that Tulsi is bad, and can't be trusted. Fortunately her message is getting through to her grassroot following. In one early poll she is at 8%, ahead of Harris. The truth will eventually surface, because all people are not this stupid. This can be easily exposed. Just asked people, if they can explain what they specifically don't like about her, and they have no idea. They only know that they don't. They all agree that we should stop all wasteful regime-change wars, bring our soldiers home, save the trillions of dollars to address all our social issues and our environment. They all agree that they are moved by her composure, confidence, authenticity, experience, and maturity. And, they all agree that her message appeals to all political ideologies on the political spectrum. They all agree that she threatens the Military Industrial Complex, the Fossil Fuel Industries, Corporate America, the DNC and the status quo. Yet they don't have a clue, why they don't support her. Is cognitive dissonance from propaganda this powerful and effective? This should be a no-brainer for anyone, that seriously wants changes to occur within their lifetime. I love Yang, but he has no political experience, and would eventually go along to get along. I love Bernie, but he is too old, and has very little foreign policy experience. Tulsi has political, legislative, military, foreign, domestic, and environmental policy experience. Even her conviction, loyalty, and integrity can't be questioned, because she stepped down as vice-chair of the DNC, because of the corruption she saw. No other candidate would have even complained, let alone sacrificed their position. But to vote for obvious corporate stooges, spewing corporate platitudes, taking corporate money, and still expecting things to change, is the very definition of insanity. The Democratic party knows that Trump would lose miserably to Tulsi. You would be choosing between a child and an adult. Another no-brainer. She would expose him as the embarrassment to this country that he is. She has never lied, and has no skeletons to hide. The DNC has publicly stated that they would "rather lose to Trump, than nominate Tulsi Gabbard as their nominee". Why do you think that is? What corporations fund the DNC? Why is there no transparency in the DNC? It is now up to the people, to chose the candidate that they want. Not the candidate that Corporate America wants. Corporate America and the DNC could care less about our social climate. After 5 decades of lies and social stagnation, when will we wake up? This woman is over-qualified, and we are just letting her slip through our fingers, because of corporate brainwashing.
Leftist brainwashing. Tulsi isn't woke enough. She blasphemed against the religion of identity politics, and she committed the sin of exposing Kamala Harris'(the identity-politics darling) hypocrisy, and, for that, she must be punished.
My ancestors, despite being the better soldiers, lost the Civil War. Why? Because old Abe finally found a general -- US Grant -- who knew that to win, you had to be persistent, and not let defeat discourage you.. Attack the rebels on the first day, get beaten back. Other Union generals would retreat to lick their wounds and call for yet greater numbers of reinforcements and hope for better luck next month or next year. Not Grant. He would attack on the second day. And if he got beaten back ... he'd attack on the third day. And it worked. A lesson for us all. I've already told you my Jana Ryslinkova story ... I think ... if not, ask me and I'll tell it again.
The problem with the Democrats on this is that mostly, Democratic voters trust their establishment and the media. They would be perfectly happy to have an establishment Dem in office. Obama was Democratic establishment type and he's been deified. So I think you must be overestimating the desire for change among Democrats. OTOH, Trump won the nomination despite constant attacks from not only the media, but the GOP establishment. But of course GOP primary voters trust neither the media or their own establishment. That's why there are Never Trumpers who still can't accept the election results. Gabbard is never going to get the nomination because most Democratic voters, even primary voters, will gladly accept whoever the party picks. Although I admit it would be funny to see "never-Gabbards." Of course, that will never happen.
Mr Trump uses the power of the state to prevent you from buying from, and selling to, whomever you please. Are you okay with that?
No, I don't know, and don't care a lot, about marijuana laws. I'm talking about laws forbidding you to import what you want from China, and to sell that country what you want.
The Democratic voters are so conditioned by corporate media, and the DNC, that they will not only believe their propaganda, but they will defend it as well. We are not talking about a political group ideology that embraces freedom, equal rights for the populace, and is a beacon for social change(Democrats) vs. the group ideology that embraces the rights of the privileged, the elites, the powerful, and will resist any social change(Republican). We are talking about corporate centrist democrats, that will pander and parrot any narrative that won't upset their corporate bosses. And, between true progressive democrats (Bernie and Tulsi), that are not beholding to their bosses, and willing to put service above self. I use to trust what was said on mainstream media, and TYT. If it were not for Tulsi, I would still be listening to their hypocrisy. I couldn't understand why any fair and balanced news corporation, would not completely support anyone who would end wasteful wars, expose government improprieties, resume nuclear treaties, is a combat veteran, stands by their personal belief, save trillions of dollars, build global relationships based on trust(not conflict), and to actually address/solve our urgent social needs. What possible reason would media giants have to repeatedly discredit, smear, lie, and attack anyone with a policy that addresses our problems directly? This would be the "holy grail" of news. The only explanation is that they also must answer to a higher corporate authority. They are only corporate talking heads, and must protect their million dollar paychecks, by saying only what they are told to say. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots between corporate fiscal policies, and the cost of social reform. Now it is clear, why not much has change in the past 4 decades. Thank you Tulsi for opening my eyes, and seeing these actors in the news, only doing what they do best-- ACT. But, no matter how good their acting may seem like the truth, it is still NOT the truth. Trump won, because he appealed to the worst of our human qualities(hatred, fear, bigotry, racism, egoism, paranoia, xenophobia, etc.). All of these negative human qualities, are based on ignorance, insecurity, frustration, and the need for attention. This is what happens, when our government continues to keep "dumbing down" America. My hope is that there are more critical thinkers, who can see through the "smoke and mirrors" and "theatrical platitudes, to save us from ourselves, and 4 more years of the last 40 years. What is it going to take? Extinction, or a world of body bags?
I'm voting Tulsi in the Primary as there is no reasonable challenge to Trump. I doubt she'll be the nominee (sleepy Joe most likely). But get her some name recognition for next round. But I think you need to expand your views on Trump, who I will vote for in the general. He and Gabbard are actually very similar in important ways. Trump is a thumb in the eye of the establishment and that is why he is so hated way out of proportion to anything he's actually done. If you are a rich, handsome guy and your wife runs off with a unemployed slob, you best do a lot more introspection regarding why this happened other than "I guess she likes poor slobs better than model good looks rich guys." Americans didn't go, "oooo, just the racist serial raper of my dreams!" and vote Trump. Like Gabbard, he wants to know why we've wasted $7 trillion in wars that have nothing to do with us, and seem to have no exit strategy. Why are our international trade agreements such that we're hollowing out the middle class (which became a minority in the US for the 1st time in 2015). An establishment guy told Tucker Carlson that of course Trump won't win. "We'll (the Republican Establishment) stop him." Well, they didn't. The Dem party stopped Bernie in 2016. Tulsi keeps meeting the mark to be in debate 3, and so far, the Dems keep moving the goal post. They appear able to stop her. That should worry us all.
In the USA, you are FORCED by the state to give some of your hard-earned money to the 'Social Security' system, via FICA taxes. You are FORCED to have a NUMBER -- your Social Security number. Would you vote for a candidate who accepts this system? Or will you only vote for a candidate who pledges to fight to close it down, and let you keep your money and decide how you want to spend it?
Interesting conversation. What I think is that blue states will vote blue, and red states will vote red. It's the battleground states that will determine the outcome of the election. I think Bernie, Warren, or Harris would have trouble in those states. Biden has a better chance in those states. A concern I have about him is his health. If I were his personal friend, I would advise him to drop out, retire, and enjoy his family. When I think about a VP choice, I doubt that Tulsi would run with any of them, and I doubt that any of them would ask her to. I think Tulsi is very intelligent, articulate, independent in her thought, and she stresses unity of the American people rather than division. She is also very photogenic. I think she would be a formidable candidate against Trump. I'm going to support Trump in the next election. But if he were to lose the election, I would choose Tulsi to be our next president over any of the other Democrats.
How can someone with such a cute kitty, be this misguided? She stepped down as vice-chairperson of the DNC, because she didn't like the corruption of Bernie Sanders freedoms. She VOLUNTEERED to fight in Iraq and Kuwait, just after 911, to protect our freedoms here. She wants to take corporate money out of politics, that take away our freedom of choice. She wants to stop all wars, to keep us secure from foreign threats. This says a lot about her character. Maybe you can share the specifics of why you think Tulsi hates freedom? You are what Tulsi has been saying. Nothing gets done, because of tribal politics and labels. You do realize that it is only the progressive policies that can actually change our social conditions. All other political ideologies, will only maintain the status quo. Like for the last 50 years. If you don't want anything to change, then stick with the corporate Democrats, and let the beat go on. Or you can choose a leader that is over-qualified, with the moxie to stand with us, to regain the power of "we the people". Will we ever wake up and see the truth? Or, will we just get use to tripping over the homeless, waiting months for medical treatment, over-priced prescription dugs, crippling student debt, and ignoring our environment to increase profit?
Well if it's extinction, it's a moot point. Populism is often thought of, as you said, "he appealed to the worst of our human qualities." It's what happens when a section of the voters realize they've been voting for the interests of elites rather the interests in their class. Trump's contribution is to recognize that the two major issues that benefit the working class, restricting immigration and trade, were issues left on the table because neither the Republicans or Democrats were talking about them since they were in opposition to the donor classes' interests. For the GOP, its' going to be hard to go back to sleep under the establishment spell since so many people have their eyes opened. But for the Democrats? They are still snoozing peacefully in the arms of the donor class.
No one knows the future. The only thing that is almost certain about it, is that there will be radical turns of direction, developments we did not predict, unknown unknowns that suddenly reveal themselves. Some of these will be bad. Some will not. Some will present us with opportunities to intervene in history and push things in the right direction. Right now, the Republican base is disturbed. All the old certainties have dissolved into air -- our military posture, our economic program ... these have all been called into question. I'm not so pessimistic as L'il Mike is about the Democratic base. The enthusiasm for Bernie showed that they are not the passive captives of the corporate elite. What is lacking is an organization of sensible people on the Right and sensible people on the Left, who can agree to disagree on some things but which can co operate on the things they agree on. Koch and Soros are funding a think tank to lobby for a sensible American-interests foreign policy, and more power to them... but they are big corporate guys and this is how they think: start an elite institution, hire a dozen staffers and a few thinkers, write editorials for the NYT Op-ed page, lobby some congresscritters. They don't think in terms of starting a rank and file organization which will aim at getting a mass base, which can turn out people for election campaigns, hold public meetings, harrass war-loving political candidates, and put some spine into those candidates who know better but have kept their heads down and gone along with the war-party line. It's obvious to me, from the responses on this forum and on others I have looked at, that there are significant numbers of politically-concerned Americans who are not happy with the status quo, in which the RNC and DNC decide which of their chosen candidates we can vote for. Let's not give up.
Here is another fake indignation, fake outrage, by fake progressives, from a fake independent news outlet(TYT), that is supposed to support progressives. Of all the corporate stooges, they support Warren. Here is their blatant hit piece and smear on Tulsi Gabbard. TYT are just more sellouts to the progressive philosophy.
