Without looking it up, can you name the current US Ambassador to the United Nations? When Nikki Haley held that position, arguably everybody in the world knew who she was. Today, it seems to me to be; not so much. Would you consider Tulsi Gabbard for that position?
I'd consider Tulsi for a lot of positions. Send her over. Hey, anyone that thought something sexual about that, you need help, see a therapist.
No, she's a Trumper. I think that once Trump isn't President we need to clean out his entire toxic cult, root and branch. As far as is legally possible we need to eliminate these people from our government I didn't even know we HAD an Ambassador to the UN. Don't we just have a delegate or something? Is the UN a country?
Nope. Couldn't name Kelly Craft. I knew Trump replaced Nikki with a woman, but that's it. Tulsi Gabbard is a Bernie supporter (or will be after she drops out). She would fit right in with the Socialists who run the UN. Tulsi is a potential choice for Bernie's VP. She's probably "too hot to handle" though since Hillary claimed she is a Russian operative....and the left peddled the story.
Is that necessarily a good thing? I’d argue that any ambassador regularly getting their name in headlines probably isn’t doing their actual job as effectively as they could.
She made headlines for standing behind Trump's Nationalist policies for the sovereignty and independence of all nations. She didn't sit there in silence, but had a strong voice of dissent. National sovereignty flies in the face of the U.N.'s goals for globalism and for organizing the world under their centralized Socialist governance. If you see that as a good thing or a bad thing is dependent on whether you support Nationalism or Globalism. I say, "Haley 2024".
Sure, but if she was just doing that at the UN, few people would have noticed. Unless they do something really bad (or have something really bad done to them), Ambassadors only make headlines if they choose to by making intentionally provocative statements or seeking out high profile interviews. None of that would be a requirement of her job, regardless of which policies she was pursuing in it. If that’s more than wishful thinking on your part wouldn’t it kind of prove my point? If she was focusing on using her position to increase her public profile with a future Presidential run in mind, she wouldn’t have been as focused on her actual job as she could have been.
Has she advocated for global socialism? I haven't seen that. Here's what I have seen: Trade: Strongly supportive of "America first" trade deals. Regime change wars: Blanketly opposed. Defending our national security: Strongly for. Using diplomacy and aid to allies; including military strikes. Terrorism: In favor of strongly fighting terrorist groups and idealogies. Israel: Strongly supportive, although not on every issue. Foreign aid: She's quiet on this issue. If anyone has any references to her position, please post link(s). Unfortunatly, she supports the Paris Global Warming fraud. That is the only strike against her, that I know of. Don't forget though, Haley had been an ardent interventionist, yet supported Trump's non-interventionist policy. Gabbard appears to be the same sort of pragmatist as Trump. I think that it's likely that she would hold back on some issues, in return for the opportunity to advance others of her policy preferences. Lastly, foreign policy is her strength. I think that being Ambassador to the United Nations, or even Secretary of State would effectively take advantage of her talents, while at the same time keep her from advancing her misguided domestic policy preferences.
Gabbard is on Sanders' short-list for VP. She stepped down from Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse him in 2016. https://www.ccn.com/5-women-bernie-sanders-might-pick-for-vp-if-nominated-2020/ https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...anders-gabbard-would-be-ideal-2020-dem-ticket
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President. It is their job to further the policies set forth by the President. Haley did just that and in doing her job, she increased her public profile. You are assuming that she was concerned first and foremost about her own publicity (and then did a "bad" job). I say that focusing on her actual job (and doing a "good" job) created the publicity. Now there are people in the new GOP wanting her to run in 2024.
Yikes. We must share the same DNA. My thoughts exactly (well, almost). We've got to drop all our prejudices -- allies are allies. Even temporary allies are allies. Even allies who are only allies on one issue are allies. Even temporary allies who are allies on one issue, are allies. We've got to shift the debate away from "intervene everywhere" towards something far more realistic: NOT the pacifism or Blame-America-First of much of the Left, and not to unthinking isolationism either. Anyway, I hope we see more of Major Gabbard.
Politics does sometimes make strange bedfellows, and you can count on there being a lot of sleeping around.
Hmmmm.... and Major Gabbard -- as we have already seen in this thread -- can deploy assetts that will seriously disrupt the command-and-control of at least some of the male section of the conservative movement. Trump has destroyed the leadership of the Republican Party, and Sanders is doing the same to the Democrats. Interesting times ahead.
I did say "if". The OP was implying that her high profile was automatically a positive thing and I was just explaining how that isn't necessarily the case.
Was it Nikki Haley????? Or am I way off???? (Ouch.... this is an edit..... I have got to learn to read entire questions before responding......... but it does make it more fun this way)!!!!!! I would like to nominate The Carl Cantrell! Don't let the Australians get him first! http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/australia-a-long-term-solution.566579/
So then from that comment I assume that you don't agree with my nomination of The Carl Cantrell???? (see post #1
