Tulsi Gabbard will not be intimidated

[Just AnotherPerson]

https://youtu.be/941L-hT71JU

[Max Rockatansky]

Sounds like a standard politician. Aloha! http://smileys.smilchat.net/smiley/hello/happy/babacool.gif

[countryboy]

https://youtu.be/941L-hT71JU
It's Democrats who are attacking her. Why is she running as a Democrat?

[Max Rockatansky]

Maybe it's her views on Assad and her naivety about the world.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/tulsi-gabbard-claims-syria-s-assad-is-not-an-enemy-of-the-u-s-1.6915367

[Just AnotherPerson]

or.....maybe it is her anti corruption anti regime change wars, views and ideals.

[Helena]

I'm waiting a bit more before throwing my hat in the ring for anyone at this point. I'll be interested to see who endorses her.

[Max Rockatansky]

or.....maybe it is her anti corruption anti regime change wars, views and ideals.
Possible, but I see it as more about naivety on her part about the different actors, major and minor, in the world. Hint: The US aren't the only ones.

[Ransom]

I'm waiting a bit more before throwing my hat in the ring for anyone at this point. I'll be interested to see who endorses her.
= I need to see where everyone else is going before I say MeToo?

[Ransom]

I'm fer Pocahontas.

[Helena]

= I need to see where everyone else is going before I say MeToo?

Heh, no. That's not what that meant at all.
It will be interesting to see what "characters" endorse her; also to see what characters virulently oppose her.

I like a lot of what she says, but words don't mean anything with politicians. She has a couple of strikes against her in my estimation, and that estimation is very surface and partisan at the moment. I'll look more closely into her voting record and things of that nature if it looks like she'll be a real contender.

[Max Rockatansky]

Heh, no. That's not what that meant at all.
It will be interesting to see what "characters" endorse her; also to see what characters virulently oppose her.

I like a lot of what she says, but words don't mean anything with politicians. She has a couple of strikes against her in my estimation, and that estimation is very surface and partisan at the moment. I'll look more closely into her voting record and things of that nature if it looks like she'll be a real contender.

Regardless, the Democratic Clown Car is forming up nicely. :)

[Tahuyaman]

Tulsi Gabbard will not be intimidated

She won't be elected POTUS either.

[MisterVeritis]

https://youtu.be/941L-hT71JU
She did not say anything. Platitudes. Gobbledygook. Pablum for Democrats.

Still, she is attractive enough to be a Republican woman.

[IMPress Polly]

I'm waiting a bit more before throwing my hat in the ring for anyone at this point. I'll be interested to see who endorses her.

I suspect that, as a member of the House of Representatives rather than a senator or a governor, her profile in this contest will be relatively low. She probably won't win that many endorsements or condemnations, I suspect. I don't think she'll be the Democratic nominee, realistically.

I'm a socialist (which means that there's nobody running for a major party nomination who really reflects my outlook) and I vote mainly based on economic principles. For me, Gabbard is one of several candidates for whom I would definitely vote were she to be chosen as the Democratic candidate. Other, more prominent announced (note: if you've formed an exploratory committee, I consider that a de facto announcement) candidates I would vote for include Elizabeth Warren (who is, I would say, the most like me of the candidates), Kamala Harris (who would be probably the most pragmatic choice for anyone who doesn't want the more neoliberal wing of the party to win out; I think she's most likely to wind up among the top two contenders for the nomination), Kirsten Gillibrand (an articulate populist-feminist), Cory Booker, and Sherrod Brown. Still deciding whether I'd vote for Jay Inslee or not and need more info on his platform.

I'm keeping an open mind and will doubtless rally behind whichever of these candidates may emerge as the favorite of the progressive wing of the party in the end (which, again, I suspect will probably be Kamala Harris). The bottom line is that I don't want the nominee to be someone like Joe Biden, Terry McAuliffe, or Michael Bloomberg. I don't want it to be another pro-corporate hack, in other words. I want it to be someone who supports the Green New Deal and Medicare for all and won't compromise on abortion rights. Those will be the main and most important voting issues for me in this election. I have some disagreements with progressives in the area of foreign policy and some cultural issues as well, but the aforementioned priorities override those areas of disagreement overall in my mind right now in terms of importance. I want the 2020 election to include a real and meaningful contest in the area of economic policy ideas for a change, not just be another contest between a far rightist and a center-right candidate.

[Captdon]

She will not be nominated. She will not be elected. She will not be POTUS- William T Sherman

[Just AnotherPerson]

I'm waiting a bit more before throwing my hat in the ring for anyone at this point. I'll be interested to see who endorses her.

Probably no one. But I am curious too.

[Helena]

...
I'm a socialist (which means that there's nobody running for a major party nomination who really reflects my outlook) and I vote mainly based on economic principles. For me, Gabbard is one of several candidates for whom I would definitely vote were she to be chosen as the Democratic candidate. Other, more prominent announced (note: if you've formed an exploratory committee, I consider that a de facto announcement) candidates I would vote for include Elizabeth Warren (who is, I would say, the most like me of the candidates), Kamala Harris (who would be probably the most pragmatic choice for anyone who doesn't want the more neoliberal wing of the party to win out; I think she's most likely to wind up among the top two contenders for the nomination), Kirsten Gillibrand (an articulate populist-feminist), Cory Booker, and Sherrod Brown. Still deciding whether I'd vote for Jay Inslee or not and need more info on his platform. None of your top picks are people I would consider at all. However, Tulsi intrigues me which is why I want to see where she goes. As you say, though, she likely won't get very far.

Kamala is definitely out for me.

I want the 2020 election to include a real and meaningful contest in the area of economic policy ideas for a change, not just be another contest between a far rightist and a center-right candidate.

I'd like it to be real and meaningful as well. Unfortunately, that seems like a losing bet. I always get sucked back in though. Every time I think I've had enough of the chicanery and the game, I always dive back in and get caught up in the show. :undecided:

[Max Rockatansky]

None of your top picks are people I would consider at all. However, Tulsi intrigues me which is why I want to see where she goes. As you say, though, she likely won't get very far.

Kamala is definitely out for me.
I'd like it to be real and meaningful as well. Unfortunately, that seems like a losing bet. I always get sucked back in though. Every time I think I've had enough of the chicanery and the game, I always dive back in and get caught up in the show. :undecided:Still too early. I doubt Biden will make the whole run. Kamala might. A lot depends upon what is going on in the WH by the time the Democratic convention takes place.

[IMPress Polly]

None of your top picks are people I would consider at all. However, Tulsi intrigues me which is why I want to see where she goes. As you say, though, she likely won't get very far.

Kamala is definitely out for me.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The candidates that I have mentioned are basically running on the same platform. Tulsi Gabbard, for example, is calling for Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, getting dark money out of politics, bringing the troops home ASAP, abortion rights, etc. etc. Why would you find her acceptable and not any of these other, more prominent candidates running on virtual identical platforms? There doesn't appear to be an appreciable difference between where she stands on the issues and where Kamala Harris stands, for example, so why is one of interest to you and the other not? (I suspect it's probably because of something unrelated to her actual views, like her background serving in the military or something like that, but I'm curious.)

This is really the first presidential election in my living memory in which most of the Democrats running are running as progressives. Traditionally, more neoliberal candidates have been in the overwhelming majority and there have only been one or two populists to choose from. As someone who sides with the progressives overall, this time around I feel like I have options for a change. This contest feels different to me in a lot of ways, in fact. I mean hell, most of the Democrats running so far are women, and that's another BIG shift because I've never seen more than one woman run for any (major) party's nomination before. In fact, there are even two women of color running already and I've never seen even one run for the presidency before. There are likewise two openly gay candidates now (one male and one female) and I've never seen any run for the White House before. There are likewise candidates running from all different parts of the country. The Democratic field actually looks like America for a change this time around. I'm pretty happy with that.

The more centrist candidates running so far are the ones from more Midwestern states: Sherrod Brown of Ohio supports Medicare for all, but has voiced concerns about the Green New Deal out of a desire to see "clean coal" jobs be part of it. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is the inverse: she supports the Green New Deal, but not Medicare for all or abolishing ICE. Finally, John Delaney of Maryland (kind of disputed territory in terms of whether you classify it as part of the Midwest, the Northeast, or the South) is running on by far the most center-right platform, being the only proper neoliberal candidate in the race; essentially a Hillary Clinton clone. All of the others who have announced are running on pretty one-sidedly left-leaning platforms.

I'm willing to vote for Sherrod Brown owing to his longtime support for single-payer health insurance and for Amy Klobuchar owing to the combination of her support for the Green New Deal and her less one-sidedly pacificistic foreign policy ideas than most of the Democrats in this particular contest have (I'm definitely against pulling out of Syria in particular because I strongly support the Kurdish anarchist fighters there who are beating back ISIS, although, conversely, I am for dropping our support for Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen) and I consider that to be sort of my maximum range of flexibility.

Really I'm the most like Elizabeth Warren overall though, both politically and personally. Warren is the proverbial Bernie Sanders of this race so far, adding additional stances like tuition-free college to her economic populist views that the other candidates aren't, for example. And she's like me about it too: she's a meanie who will call Trump names and stuff, which is fun. :grin: That's how I would be if it were me running, honestly. (You can't say he hasn't earned it.) I'm not a peace, love, and understanding PC kind of person at the end of the day. I'm angry: I hate Trump, I hate the political establishment, and I hate corporate America. I relate the most to Elizabeth Warren's campaign as a result. But I also don't think that's where America overall is. Maybe 40% of America, but that's not enough to win. That's why I'm open-minded to candidates like Kamala Harris who, you know, speak more gently in the kinds of abstract platitudes about unity that are accessible to more middle class people and don't necessarily checkmark off absolutely every Bernie Sanders-aligned position there is available. The propertied middle class has reservations about certain degrees of economic leftism and wants a "likable" candidate above all, and there are progressive candidates who are nicer than Elizabeth Warren (and me). And who people of color (a significant chunk of the Democratic Party that I don't think you can win the nomination without the majority of anymore) are more familiar with and interested in.


I'd like it to be real and meaningful as well. Unfortunately, that seems like a losing bet. I always get sucked back in though. Every time I think I've had enough of the chicanery and the game, I always dive back in and get caught up in the show. :undecided:

Yeah, I think you're probably right about that, honestly. I figure a celebrity neoliberal like Joe Biden will enter the race relatively late (maybe say just before the first debate in June, or immediately thereafter) and emerge the actual nominee. I mean when, by a wide margin, the polls say that Democrats are prioritizing the defeat of Trump above fidelity to principles in this contest, I think that's the kind of mentality that makes it likely that, at the end of the day, despite the way things may look right now, a more conventional candidate will win. But with so many options for progressives to choose from this time, I feel like there is at least some hope for a viable one to emerge as a strong challenger. I'm just hoping out loud here.

I mean even if a progressive does win, you know, there's billionaire Howard Schultz waiting in the wings to declare an independent run in protest, and he WILL carry the suburban middle class if he does and thus tip the election to Trump. Call me cynical. But I'm trying to have hope.

(I don't actually consider myself to be a progressive anymore because I do have significant differences with the movement that are most pronounced on a range of cultural issues, but I do side with the progressives overall in elections because my vote is determined mainly by economic issues.)

[Helena]

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The candidates that I have mentioned are basically running on the same platform. Tulsi Gabbard, for example, is calling for Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, getting dark money out of politics, bringing the troops home ASAP, abortion rights, etc. etc. Why would you find her acceptable and not any of these other, more prominent candidates running on virtual identical platforms? There doesn't appear to be an appreciable difference between where she stands on the issues and where Kamala Harris stands, for example, so why is one of interest to you and the other not? (I suspect it's probably because of something unrelated to her actual views, like her background serving in the military or something like that, but I'm curious.)

Heh, I was confused as to why you would back Kamala Harris and was going to ask but then I figured it doesn't really matter. I won't back Kamala Harris accounting for her background as DA and AG , among some other things.
Now see, I didn't look into Tulsi, because as I said I was waiting. If I had been properly informed that she was all for the Green New Deal, then she wouldn't have been nearly as intriguing. It had nothing to do with her service; I think her service gives her some insight into our unnecessary military confrontations and I did like what I initially heard from her about that.

As for Elizabeth Warren, well. Um. Well. She has a kind face. :smiley:

[Tahuyaman]

https://youtu.be/941L-hT71JU


You can listen to that ten times and you still won't know where she stands on any issue. Based on that, she's vapid.

[roadmaster]

She has already been intimidated. Already apologized under pressure.

[Tahuyaman]

She has already been intimidated. Already apologized under pressure.
Just about every Democrat has apologized for something.

[IMPress Polly]

Heh, I was confused as to why you would back Kamala Harris and was going to ask but then I figured it doesn't really matter. I won't back Kamala Harris accounting for her background as DA and AG , among some other things.

It surprises me that the above would be your point of objection to Kamala Harris. But it also surprises me that you'd have been interested in Tulsi Gabbard in the first place. I had you pegged as a somewhat moderate conservative and overall a big fan of the White House's current occupant who would never consider voting for anyone else next year.


As for Elizabeth Warren, well. Um. Well. She has a kind face. :smiley:

That's what people say about me too. :wink:

[Helena]

It surprises me that the above would be your point of objection to Kamala Harris. But it also surprises me that you'd have been interested in Tulsi Gabbard in the first place.

Just shows to go ya. :wink:



I had you pegged as a somewhat moderate conservative and overall a big fan of the White House's current occupant who would never consider voting for anyone else next year.
Let's put it this way. Everyone has the chance to impress me and I'm always disappointed.