• I don't know that much about her... but I know she isn't a Peace candidate. That may not be a bad thing either, but it is definitely a mischaracterization.

    Wow... That website though! I found out most of what I needed to know about that website even without clicking on the other articles. Its based in Russia and considers the Steele Dossier a Democrat conspiracy. Its not just anti Israel, but overall anti-Jewish. They spread a good deal of 'Fake News' back around midterm time too. Great stuff.

  • it has to be questioned if America is ready for another smooth-talking black politician whose actual record of accomplishments is on the thin side

    Browsing the links Bill posts really is like peeking into a bizarre other world.

  • edited February 2019

    Goddamnit I hate it when the hosts of The View ask harder questions than 'real' news sources.

    Over the last week I've been seeing more and more things about Tulsi Gabbard that make me think she is one of the people that Russia wants to be in the election. I'm not saying she's collaborating with them (although she missed votes on the Russian sanctions...). I'm also not saying that they actually want her to become president. I think they want her to be just popular enough to incite infighting within the left. They have definitely started up their meme factories and PR sources. Kind of like Jill Stein or Bernie in 2016. (I love Bernie, but he had no idea what the fuck was going on with his PR and didn't seem to care about it, particularly after the primaries).

    Plus, despite her good qualities she really does have a problematic history. I'm not 100% sure about some of the claims on the National Review article, but I've seen a few of them now from sources I do trust. Including that she supported homosexual reeducation camps. Her saving grace may be her age at the time... She may have still been under her parents thumb 15-20 years ago, and her recent voting record has been slightly better on the issue.

    Being anti-interventionist is not the same as being a peace candidate. Hell, its not even something I disagree with completely... Trying to implement regime change really has created some issues, particularly when it was done using clandestine methods. But some of her public statements come across as being anti-UN, and anti-aid, and that is a show-stopper for me.

    We're a big country. We can fund or veterans, do more to help our homeless, and occasionally send some damn food to a country, loan some money to a struggling democracy, or paint some military equipment white/blue for the UN. But for some reason the damn politicians keep telling us we can only do one of those things at a time.

  • Her interview on Joe Rogan goes a little more in depth. I'm in 100% agreement on us not invading countries, hell the Iraq war was the one time in my life I felt compelled to take to the streets, but there is just something off about the way Tulsi speaks, it's too perfect, I'm thinking she may just be some advanced form of AI (Aloha Intellegence)

  • New Joe Rogan:

  • A line from twitter I liked:

    "Give me five minutes alone with Joe Rogan and I'm pretty sure I could convince him he's been dead for twenty years"

  • This link lead to a malicious page that locked up my browser.

  • It works for me. I use Firefox with an ad blocker.

    Here is an alternate link.

  • Tulsi seems to forget which party she's running in. (Although she is not extreme enough for most 'active' republicans right now).

    She may be anti-interventionist, but she is by no means pro-peace.

  • @Clme said:
    Tulsi seems to forget which party she's running in. (Although she is not extreme enough for most 'active' republicans right now).

    She may be anti-interventionist, but she is by no means pro-peace.

    That she has served in the military is a big hint that she isn't a pacifist. I think that most of us believe that there are times that military action is necessary, and some of those times don't qualify as strictly self-defense.

    She certainly is an interesting Democrat.

  • Yes. We only want to shoot people when Tulsi votes for it. ;-)

    I thought her tweets about Saudi Arabia were definitely interesting though. It definitely brought her profile up among the left.

  • I still say Tulsi would make a better Republican candidate. She's definitely already playing their games.

  • edited October 2019

    I'm not convinced she's aware she's an asset... but she sure has their talking points down pat.

    Funny enough, this sarcastic article that is meant to knock the wind out of the sails of the 'Russian plot' by both exaggerating and lying about points (like the 'conclusion' of the Mueller report) actually doesn't do much to convince me that Tulsi is a good candidate...

  • I don't know if she is a good candidate, but I certainly find her interesting. I don't see any scenario that is at all likely in which she gets the Democratic nomination, though. Even if Biden's health fails and Warren gets taken out by a scandal, I don't see the Democrats as they are presently constituted nominating someone like her.

    There is a somewhat better chance of her getting asked to be the running mate, but it doesn't strike me as being that high. My guess is that the VP nominee will be a popular politician from a swing state with a lot of electoral votes.

    But what do I know? My political prognostication skills are lacking. Heck, I never thought Clinton would get elected for a second term.

  • edited October 2019

    I'm actually beginning to question if Tulsi will be reelected in her own district... her elevated national profile has reportedly not done much for her local constituents. But of course the ones I see on TV and hear on the radio are just the loud ones, so that isn't much of a prediction yet either.

    Boy she sure does like the phrase 'regime change' though. Wow.

  • From what I understand, her family has been active in Hawaiian politics for a long time. They're not well liked.

  • Yeah... the more I look into her families past even over the last 20/30 years the more I don't like any of them.

  • One increasingly gets the feeling that by this time next year Tulsi will be working for Fox News.

  • You're probably right, but I have to wonder if it was the plan all along? Is that why she seemed insincere, or is it just some weird Buddhist vibe I'm not familiar with?

  • Hmm. I should have posted the podcast in the other thread here. Oh well.

    I will say, I am not happy that Hillary Clinton all-but named Tulsi as a person being groomed by Republicans and outside influences/Russia.

    Its not that she's necessarily wrong about the 'being groomed by republicans' bit. Or even that Russia is pushing her with their state-run media, memes, and social media injections. Its that just Hillary being associated with the message has already gotten all the people that hate Hillary (or consider any mention of Russia to be a sign of a liberal conspiracy) all riled up for Tulsi and has extended her campaign.

    For the record: I don't buy the whole "Russia is solely to blame for everything in 2016" message. But I also can't buy into the whole "LOL 'Russia bad'" movement that is gaining traction and discounting real, actual, proven issues.

  • Hillary Clinton says "Hello" in the media... Neo-cons triggered! "OMG BENGAZI"!!

  • Or they get to recycle things like this...

  • My own personal stoned theory is that Tulsi was so upset by the way the superdelegates hijacked Hawaii in 2016 she decided to get involved. I feel like she will eventually concede and support Sanders, to his detriment.

  • I hope you're right. Well, not at the detriment to Sanders bit. Though since the same people are still in charge and Sanders didn't really ingratiate himself to them I don't see him getting the nomination even with the changes in how the delegate/superdelegate counts are done.

    At this point if she stayed in and ran third party I'd be wondering how much she'd being doing it to spite Clinton. :-)

Sign In or Register to comment.