I agree with you that she walks the walk and talks the talk. I suspect that her experiences at war have changed her forever, like many war vets. My son is a Purple Heart war veteran, and I know how he now looks at war. I wish to correct you on one thing. Tulsi has stated that Al Qaeda is our enemy and should be confronted. So she is not necessarily a dyed-in-the-wool dove who would stop ALL wars. She has been very clear that we must confront our existential enemies, while at the same time opposing useless regime change wars. She makes that distinction. I think that's good because it shows that she is in favor of defending our country where necessary, rather than just making a blanket disapproval of all wars in every case. My experiences as the parent of a son at war have changed me forever. My son has done 4 deployments since 2007 and is preparing for another one, probably in 2020. He and I are both of the same mind - that our real enemies should be confronted, but that we should not engage in unnecessary wars just because we have the arrogance and military might to try and force our will on people who are not like us and who pose no threat to us. Their internal conflicts, even if bloody, are not our business. I find it interesting that if Tulsi and Trump were to sit down and discuss foreign policy, they would agree upon much. Trump also is trying to extricate us from expensive, useless foreign wars. He has resisted huge pressure from within the DC establishment to stay in Syria and to attack Iran, and yet he hasn't done it. I see his refusal to do these things as a sign of clear vision and strength, not a sign of weakness. Of course, on domestic policy, Tulsi and Trump would disagree on a lot, but they are very similar on foreign policy. I do not fear the reelection of Donald Trump because I have faith that he will not engage us in war unless it is absolutely necessary with no other alternative, and only if it is in defense of our country or our closest longstanding traditional allies. I think the Democrats are missing the boat on Tulsi. She is the best of them. Seth
the problem with that statement IS... she's running under the dem umbrella, ergo even if she miraculously wins the presidency, her policies & beliefs WILL be given to her by the dnc leadership... end of
I agree with most of your comments. But, could you point out just one of Tulsi's policies that you consider as disingenuous or stupid? It is true that the corporate establishment will do anything to destroy her campaign and to discredit her character. Trillions of dollars are at stake. She is a very plausible threat to their bottom-line, their shareholders, and their corporate control of the public narrative. It is up to the people to exercise the power that they collectively have. Tulsi is the only voice that represents what the framers expected from the Constitution. I also disagree with Dave Rubin, that Tulsi is an isolationist because she wants to stop all illegal wars. This is called a false-choice fallacy. It says that you are not bombing or sanctioning other countries(war), then you are an isolationist. Is there no other way that the US can stay involved with other countries, other than bombing and sanctioning them? Of course there is. Why are we all not rallying around the only candidate that could change the world? Why have we become so complacent, and distracted by the issues of the rich and the elite? Why would anyone purposely vote for someone that is ego-driven, and will say and do anything to get elected?
You misread my post, I was saying her campaign demonstrates the disengenuousness and stupidity of the other left candidates.
It was worth watching. Not so funny how words have been corrupted in America usually by the left. Left wing, right wing, conservative, liberal, anarchist, libertarian, etc. They were all coined in Europe. From old dictionaries from the 1700's we know the word anarchist existed and there were anarchist in the world. There were anarchist labor unions in Europe. Most labor unions in Europe were left wing and by the early 1900's heavily imbedded with communist. Labor unions were more political than representing the workers. A true libertarian and I know a few and only a few are closer to being an anarchist. No military, no police, no real government, to be able to do what ever you want as long it doesn't interfere with someone else, survival of the fittest it seems what they are saying. Look up nationalist socialist (nazi) in a late 1920's Oxford Dictionary. Left Wing. The nationalist socialist (nazis) didn't like monarchs, and aristocrats. Nazis in Germany toppled statues of former German monarchs and famous German aristocrats. That sure isn't right wing. There was one Republican in Congress before he was replaced by a leftist hodad during the midterms by harvesting ballots who identified himself as a libertarian-Republican...David Rohrbacher, the Congressman who was a surfer. During the Vietnam War Rhobacher was a member of the "Young American's for Freedom." They supported the war in Vietnam but opposed the draft and looked at the SDS as being the enemy which they were, the SDS were just useful idiots of the Kremlin. From the "Young American's for Freedom" many of it's members would go on to establishing the Libertarian Party in America.
Seth, Please Thank your son for his service and give him a hug from me. God Bless our troops. Oh how I wish Tulsi was a bit more republican. She is an asset to be embraced by the republicans as the stupid democrat party is trying to bury her as fast as they can.
Tulsi is the only Democrat with a chance to win the presidency, but she's not conforming to the policies of the Washington ideologues and their liberal one world order/government. Obama and Clinton were both forwarded and supported by George Soros, and I recall him saying many years ago that he believes in a liberal one world government and currency. All the protests and regime change chaos in the world, can be traced back to NGO's supported by his Open Society Foundation. His society also supports over 150 liberal organizations in this country.
Thank you for the kind words. My son ... I'm so proud of him! And yes, yes, yes ... Too bad she isn't more conservative. I would love that. We conservatives would wish to win every future election for the rest of our lives, but that is not going to happen. The pendulum swings. That is the history. The Dems will get their turn. It's not a matter of "if"; it's a matter of "when". In 2024, Tulsi will have had 4 more years as a member of Congress, and she will have name recognition from 2020. I think 2024 could be her year. Since the change of party into the White House is inevitable, I hope it is she who moves in. In spite of her progressive positions, she is the best of them. Seth
Thank you so very much for injecting at least, a rational question about Tulsi. I am also a veteran, that must carry the visible traumas of the Viet Nam war. So, I thank you and your son for your services. There is a very big difference in fighting terrorists that pose a direct threat to the safety of the US, and fighting a regime-change war to overthrow a government we don't like, or whose resources we want. Al Qaeda is a religious terrorist organization the practices and preaches the most radical form of the Islamic faith(Wahhabi Salafism). Tulsi has been very clear about the distinction. Any country that is insane enough to attack the US, its bases and troops, or its allies, that the US would retaliate with prejudice. Why do you think that the Syrian army will not attack any American troops, that are occupying their land illegally? She has also made it clear that an act of war declaration with another country, would go through congress first. Not by any executive orders, or some loop-hole interpretation of the Patriot( Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act. She is NOT a dove in this scenario, she is just highlighting, just how a responsible leader of the free world should behave. Fighting terrorists and terrorism is a police action, that we share with many other countries in the world. That is, we must share intel, logistics, businesses, security, and any other pertinent information to prevent and destroy any viable threat of a terrorist attack anywhere in the world. To be clear, the objective of regime-change war is to change the regime. The objective of fighting terrorists, is to nullify the threat. Again, a war on terrorism, should not be conflated to mean a war with a sovereign country(like Venezuela, Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc.). I hope that I have cleared up this confusion. Regarding foreign policies experiences between Tulsi and Trump. Tulsi has 17 years of experience as a Major in the National guard. This includes two tours of duty in a combat zone. She has almost 7 years of legislative experience in the Homeland Security Committee, House Arms Service Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services(as well as their subcommittees). Donald Trump has ZERO military or legislative experience. It is not what they might agree on foreign policies, it is the depth of knowledge and understand that they can exhibit. It is information, experience, and knowledge that form the basis of an informed choice. Regarding Domestic Issues, why would anyone listen to a "billionaire" who has never known one day of suffering, or being without? What would social reforms mean to him? If the entire corporate establishment is not successful in silencing her message, smearing her character, and ending her campaign, and she somehow does become the nominee, a debate between Trump and Tulsi is never going to take place. Any other candidate, he could dismantle and bully them easily, by attacking their credibility(age, history, lies, gaffes, policies, etc). But Trump may be a chronic narcissist, but he isn't stupid. He knows that the contrast between Tulsi and himself would sink him before the first words were ever spoken. Remember the Nixon/Kennedy debates? He knows that he would be exposing his true self, in the presence of genuine authenticity. If Trump had similar views to Major Gabbard, there would be no threat of war with Iran, no American bases surrounding Syria and Iran, no abandonment of 2 nuclear treaties(and other treaties), no more crippling sanctions around the world, no Trillion dollar budget for the military, no more closing down the government, etc. Whether domestic or foreign policies, Trump is totally out of his league. Faith has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It is competence. Also, "...unless it is absolutely necessary with no other alternative,.." can mean anything they tell you it means. Just like "WMD's" meant whatever they wanted it to mean. In the end, they gave up any pretence of the lie, and just said he was an evil dictator. This is what weak leadership looks like, and Tulsi is not just good for the Democratic Party, she is what is good for the entire world.
I'm not sure if you are making a point, or simply editorializing. But I agree with everything you've said. Thank you.
No, he is wrong and politically one-dimensional. The problem in congress is not getting the support from your own party members. The problem is getting support from the other party members. If you just look at her activities in Congress, she has been very effective in getting many bi-partisan bills passed. Also, just name another candidate who has received more support from libertarians, conservatives, nationalists, centrists, socialists, republicans, and progressives, for her policies? What other democrat can claim this? Congress only reflects the hyper-partisan mania of its constituents Instead of focusing on the symptoms, try curing the disease. Vote them out of office, if they don't put service before self. You have the power to force all parties to work together. But keeping these cynical and pessimistic attitudes, only contributes to the problem. If parties are NOT working together, weed out the political fundamentalists. Get rid of the dinosaurs holding our society back.
I served in the Army just after the Viet Nam War, in the 25th ID from 74-77. My son, however, has been through combat multiple times in our recent wars. We are not going to see a Trump - Gabbard debate because the Dems don't know who their best candidate is. Eventually, we'll probably see him debate against Warren or possibly Biden, although I think Warren is the most likely. I agree with you that Tulsi's depth of experience in the military and in government is greater than Trump's. But that doesn't mean that his philosophy on these damn wars is wrong, and that's the important thing. Hell, Lindsey Graham has by far more depth of experience in the military and government than Trump, but I think his philosophy on wars is completely wrong. See what I'm saying? Watch for Tulsi to rise to the top in 2024. Mark my words. Seth
The media has complete control of people's minds and they are owned by 6 corporations. No doubt they are the same people and with the same mind set. It's not easy for any candidate to reach the people without their support.
Well ... two questions present themselves. (1) Can we continue to afford this? Remember that technology is advancing rapidly and one of the results of technological advance is that things become cheaper. Things like intelligent cruise missiles that can fly very fast, close to the surface of the ocean, weaving in an unpredictable 'S'-pattern ... and costing much less than aircraft carrier, so that it makes economic sense to fire twenty or thirty of them to get one carrier. Now of course we can try to defend against these things: in the past, we have always had overwhelming technical superiority: we had B52s and the Vietnamese had AK47s ... it wasn't enough to win, but we never worried about our offshore fleet. Things are changing. If we want to have an enormous military presence all over the world, and one that isn't just sitting ducks, we will need to spend a lot of money ... higher taxes. But if it's necessary to our survival, maybe we should. Perhaps we should also bring back conscription, in order to get a sufficiently-sized military at lower cost. (2) Independently of just how big our military should be, and where it should be located (everywhere, evidently) there is the question of what we should be doing with it, something that has just presented itself very dramatically, with TV images of the American flag flying from vehicles carrying American soldiers rapidly running away from their betrayed Kurdish former allies, who were then slaughtered by the Turks and the jihadis that we had been supporting. (Wait ... that can't be right, can it? Supporting Islamists against a secular regime. Do I have that right? And what about that admirable slogan I used to see on so many bumper stickers fifteen years ago, "These colors don't run!" ... Seems that they do.) So ... what is our 'grand strategy' to bring liberal democracy to Iraq and Iran? Just having a massive military and waiting for it to be attacked, and responding here and there as the President's impulses dictate ... that doesn't seem like a very good strategy to me. Finally: China is on the rise. It's never safe to assume any trend will continue forever, but this one looks like going on and on. How are we going to deal with that? I don't have an answer, because I don't know enough to try to understand how the Chinese leadership sees the world, and what their ultimate goals are, besides making China the strongest nation in the world, both econonimically and militarily. But how are we going to handle a world in which we are .... number two? We can hope, as I do, that China undergoes a profound internal transformation, ideally a peaceful transformation to being a giant Hong Kong. What can we do to facilitate this? And if it doesn't happen, what should we do? We could 'contain' communism, because even where we didn't succeed -- China, Vietnam ... the gross failure of state socialism to ensure economic growth ensured that it would die a natural death. But China seems to have mastered the art, as the other Oriental countries have, of combining state intervention with private initiative. So 'containment' doesn't fit ... and the Chinese are not trying to spread their particular brand of market-and-state, but simply acting as the Great Powers of the 19th Century acted ... insuring markets in the rest of the world, this time through indirect economic means rather than through colonial conquest. We need to think soberly about all of this. And finally ... the problem with continuing for the next few decades as we did from the end of WWII, overlooks one thing. We are rotting from within. The America that won the Cold War is dying. We must not deny this reality, as terrible as it may be. What we don't want is the worst of both worlds: a nation that continues to put itself in harm's way abroad, but which is increasingly, at its core, incapable of doing harm in response.
If the Democratic Party had any sense, I think they would make Tulsi their candidate. It would give Dems who are regular people, and there are plenty of those (as opposed to socialists) someone to vote for.
If the Republican Party had any sense, they would recall Jim Webb to a sense of his duty, bring him back to the Republican Party where he was for many years until Mr Bush began his foreign wars, and then propose a 'fusion' candidacy of him with Tulsi Gabbard. The one thing I would like to see clarified with a Gabbard candidacy, under whatever ticket, is Supreme Court appointees. Something is wrong with our democracy when judges are deciding things that should be a matter of popular control, either through laws passed by legislatures, or just custom. I can absolutely understand the liberal objection to a partisan Supreme Court which takes the Republican side in things like the Gore/Bush ballot in 2000, or the 'Citizens United' decision. But neither do I want a Supreme Court that caters to the increasingly-insane ideas of Political Correctness. I don't know enough about Constitutional Law to propose a remedy for an increasingly-politicized Court -- term limits? expansion of its numbers? -- but it's the one thing that might prevent me from voting for an otherwise-acceptable Democratic (i.e. Tulsi-led) ticket.
How old is Webb these days? We need a Constitutional Amendment to end the filibuster, and limit judges to 12 year terms. Judges should simply call balls and strikes and they shouldn't be household names. Gabbard: Clinton’s Foreign Policy ‘Proven to be Incredibly Destructive.’ - She's right. Thanks to Obama’s policies — and Hillary Clinton’s — black people are sold as slaves in Libya. That’s what establishment “expertise” gets you.
bullocks...in this moment of time, if tulsi won the dnc elitists would rule her, she'd be a puppet of pelosi & gang...
Because she called out KSA? Being against a terrorist nation like KSA isn't dumb...it's smart. I'm not even a Democrat (as you know) and even I can agree with that.
