Tulsi Gabbard

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

You, in effect, say, oh well, maybe it happened, but it didn't matter.  Maybe, maybe not.  But that doesn't change the fact that it did happen.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
You, in effect, say, oh well, maybe it happened, but it didn't matter.  Maybe, maybe not.  But that doesn't change the fact that it did happen.

So if I was using Ashley Madison to cheat on my significant other, and someone breached that account and my significant other found out, even though that is a data breach, does that mean it was still okay for me to cheat? Should that information still have come out? Would my significant other still have had the right to be angry with  me?

josh

If the information was made public, to your employer, relatives, etc., you would have every right.  And what you're saying is, it is okay for a country to break in and steal the work product of a political party in another country.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
If the information was made public, to your employer, relatives, etc., you would have every right.  And what you're saying is, it is okay for a country to break in and steal the work product of a political party in another country.

You don't think that countries have been doing that to each other before 2016?

Going back to the example I gave, even though I may have been wronged, would my significant other be wrong to be angry about what was found out and possibly end the relationship over that?

josh

Answered you.  And I don't abide by the "everybody does it" defense.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Answered you.  And I don't abide by the "everybody does it" defense.

And you haven't addressed any of the substance of what I said.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Discredited?  LOL?  By whom?  NDPP?  RT?  Fox?  The Mueller investigation, among others, established that the Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta, stole the information, and had it disseminated, in an effort to defeat Clinton and elect Trump.

Do you consider Glenn Greenwald a credible source?

Quote:

The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.

That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”

josh

Now you're moving the goal posts.  What does that have to do with Russia burglarizing the DNC and Podesta's computers.

Aristotleded24

The Democrats have been promoting conspiracy theories that Trump and Putin collaborated to ensure that Trump would be elected to further Russian interests. The revelations about the DNC that were breached were not flatterirng. They could not challenge the substance of what was released, so they extended the conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the DNC to preven them from winning.

Proper security is a must in this digital age, and the DNC apparently did not do that. It's like if I forget to lock my house and someone walks in and steals my things. Yes, that is wrong, but I was also not as prudent as I needed to be in securing the property, and getting angry about it won't change that.

Back to my analogy, if I have an Ashley Madison account, if that account is hacked and my significant other finds out about that, would she be wrong to end the relationship over that? Or would I have a right to expect the relationship to be able to continue because my cheating on her should never have been public, according to what you are saying?

josh

"Officer, we did not have a security alarm in our house."

"Well, then we are not required to go after and arrest the burglar who broke into your house and stole your jewlery."

josh

they extended the conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the DNC to preven them from winning.

No, Russia hacked them to help them win.

And did Russia hack any Republicans, and disseminate that information.

Aristotleded24

In an actual situation, locked door or not, very rarely would police intervention in such a residential break-in go beyond providing a report for insurance purposes. In any case, you have continued to miss the point I was making.

Does that mean that as long as you don't get caught, cheating is okay? Or if you're caught by bad actors, cheating is okay, but if you're caught by good actors, cheating is wrong?

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:

they extended the conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the DNC to preven them from winning.

No, Russia hacked them to help them win.

And did Russia hack any Republicans, and disseminate that information.

While internally biased against Trump, the RNC did not actively intevene in the race to favour one candidate over another. The DNC did. That's why people are angry at the DNC. If there's no such dirt on the Republicans, there's nothing to disseminate.

josh

So then they did hack them to prevent them from winning.

kropotkin1951

So Josh your corrupt anti-democratic DNC crooks are more moral than your opponents in the Republican party? They may be bastards but they are your bastards.

josh

The DNC is even more irrelevant today than it was 3-4 years ago. 

NDPP

Chomsky is right. Josh is wrong.

"I think it's so farcical...it's a joke."

https://youtu.be/TtqWefIhMY

 

"Never thought such a minor protest candidate could cause such a titanic meltdown among establishment hacks simply by calling for an end to regime change wars..."

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1184486446700339201

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/O_iJsy-bJ-k

"Tulsi calls out CNN to their face!"

Aristotleded24

As for Tulsi Gabbard, while I have defended her and still hold the opinion that she has integrity, I still have my disagreements with her. The bigges one, which I posed upthread, was backing away from Medicare for All. That effectively killed her chances of winning the nomination (if she ever had any) because for many progressives, that is a deal-breaker issue. To me, that leaves Bernie as the only progressive in the race who is worthy of support for the top job. Having said that, Tulsi's campaign has done a tremendous public service in raising the issue of foreign policy and empire building, the same way that Bernie's campaign raised issues of domestic economic policy in 2016. Gabbard has even outflanked Bernie on many foreign policy issues. I think Gabbard would fit in very well with a Sanders administraiton as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. I would have wanted to see her as VP, but with my disagreements with her on other issues, I'm not sure I want her that close to the top job.

NDPP

[CROOKED] 'Hillary Strongly Implies That Tulsi Gabbard Is A Russian Asset'

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1185198706016112640

"Hillary strongly implies that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset who will act to serve the Kremlin's interest. Also says there's no doubt Jill Stein is. Does she have evidence for these grave accusations? Of course not. None is needed in Dem Party discourse. It's gutter trash."

But gutter trash fervently endorsed by babble chumps and gullibles.

Ward
josh

 

Problem Solver Politics With Cardon Ellis – Who Are The Unions Really Serving – March 24, 2019

On this episode of Problem Solver Politics Cardon and Mark are joined by Mariah Gondeiro, Litigation Counsel from the Freedom Foundation, to talk about how the unions are really serving on the back of a recent case against Los Angeles County teachers union attempting to force its members to remain members even going as far as to remove their dues from their paychecks.

https://www.hometownstation.com/podcasts/problem-solver-politics-with-cardon-ellis-who-are-the-unions-really-serving-march-24-2019-271781

Ward

josh wrote:

 

Problem Solver Politics With Cardon Ellis – Who Are The Unions Really Serving – March 24, 2019

On this episode of Problem Solver Politics Cardon and Mark are joined by Mariah Gondeiro, Litigation Counsel from the Freedom Foundation, to talk about how the unions are really serving on the back of a recent case against Los Angeles County teachers union attempting to force its members to remain members even going as far as to remove their dues from their paychecks.

https://www.hometownstation.com/podcasts/problem-solver-politics-with-cardon-ellis-who-are-the-unions-really-serving-march-24-2019-271781

https://youtu.be/3Ja8tpElxlo

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I'm not all that much of a Tulsi fan, but Tim Black is awesome.

NDPP

"Trump is savoring every moment of the deranged smear campaign run by Clinton, US govt spies and their corporate media lackeys against Gabbard. A few had the foresight to see that Russiagate hysteria would be wielded against the left. Now it should be apparent for all to see."

https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1185755233151934465

josh

Gabbard announces that she won't run for re-election, sparing herself a primary defeat, shortly after she appeared on Sean Hannity to criticize the impeachment investigation.  

NDPP

"Tulsi Gabbard appears on Hannity and criticises the impeachment inquiry process by saying she doesn't know what's going on behind closed doors and that she wants transparency...IMO, good advice for Dems."

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1187585943756328960

 

josh

Tulsi Gabbard appears on Fox and shows her ignorance.  An investigation, by definition, is done behind closed doors.  And there are 47 Republicans on the committees doing the investigating.  But it's nice, once again, to see supposed members of the left mouthing Trumpkin talking points.

NDPP

Useful Idiots

https://youtu.be/gV1cKItw_gM

"Abbie Martin talks to me and Matt Taibbi about Hillary's neo-McCarthyite smears..."

Mobo2000

More Matt Taibbi on the russian assets everywhere:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/clinton-gabba...

"Everyone is foreign scum these days. Democrats spent three years trying to prove Donald Trump is a Russian pawn. Mitch McConnell is “Moscow Mitch.” Third party candidates are a Russian plot. The Bernie Sanders movement is not just a wasteland of racist and misogynist “Bros,” but according to intelligence agencies and mainstream pundits alike the beneficiary of an ambitious Russian plot to “stoke the divide” within the Democratic Party. The Joe Rogan independents attracted to the mild antiwar message of Tulsi Gabbard are likewise traitors and dupes for the Kremlin.

If you’re keeping score, that’s pretty much the whole spectrum of American political thought, excepting MSNBC Democrats. What a coincidence!

Democrats now are assuming the role once played by Republicans of the Tom Delay era, who denounced everyone opposed to the War on Terror as “Saddam-lovers.” ...

"After Clinton gave the “Russian asset” interview, it seemed for a moment like America’s commentariat might tiptoe away from the topic. Hillary Clinton has been through a lot over the course of a career, and even detractors would say she’s earned latitude to go loonybiscuits every now and then. A few of the Democratic presidential candidates, like Beto O’Rourke and Andrew Yang, gently chided Clinton for her remarks. But when Gabbard (who’s similarly been through a brutal media ordeal) snapped back and called Hillary “Queen of the warmongers,” and Donald Trump followed by calling Clinton “crazy,” most pundits doubled down on the “asset” idea.

Neoconservative-turned-#Resistance hero David Frum blasted Trump for defending Stein and Gabbard, noting sarcastically, “He was supposed to pretend they were not all on the same team.” Ana Navarro on CNN said, “When both the Russians and Trump support someone, be wary.” An MSNBC panel noted, in apparent seriousness, that Gabbard “never denied being a Russian asset.” CNN media critic Brian Stelter tried to suggest Hillary only seemed wacko thanks to a trick of the red enemy, saying, “It feels like a disinformation situation where the Russians want this kind of disinformation.”

Mobo:   Are any babblers fans of Stanislov Lem?   Memoirs Found in a Bathtub feels very relevant now.

NDPP

Read Solaris, The Futurological Congress and One Human Minute. Quite enjoyed them all. Haven't read Memoirs yet. Will add it to my list. As for the relentless dissemination of outlandish conspiracy theories originating with the US intelligence agencies, it is truly frightening to see. When I was a teen I had a friend whose father was a Wermacht vet. I used to repeatedly ask him how people could possibly believe a word crazy Hitler said. He said that as an 18 year old everybody around him seemed to believe it and told him it was his duty to serve his country. After Vietnam I thought the American propaganda machine had been permanently discredited and its power forever broken. I was wrong. Frankly I am embarrassed for those who resolutely  believe all the drivel the NYT or WaPo or the Guardian dishes up on this. It's like an adult who still believes in Santa Claus and no amount of proof offered up against this delusion can budge it. And if you take issue with it you're automatically a Trump supporter or a 'Putinist'. Incredible really and quite scary.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard appears on Fox and shows her ignorance.  An investigation, by definition, is done behind closed doors.  And there are 47 Republicans on the committees doing the investigating.  But it's nice, once again, to see supposed members of the left mouthing Trumpkin talking points.

Tulsi would handily win her Congressional seat as an independent against whatever corporatist the Democratic Establishment would put up to run against her.

josh

Nope.

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/Ov1zoBNNAzA

"Clueless CBS host schooled by Tulsi..."

josh

 

Tulsi has won the respect of a lot of influential Trump supporters,” OANN host Jack Posobiec said.

https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1188103003297009669?s=20

NDPP

"It is Tulsi Gabbard, not Nancy Pelosi, telling the truth on Syria. What started as an ugly regime overthrow war overseen by the Democrats quickly descended into something darker still: a neocon vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives."

https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1185203026476359680

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Nope.

She would. She nominally represents a Democratic district, but Hawaiians are an independent group who, when push comes to shove, aren't going to let the establishment in the Republican or Democratic primaries tell them how to think. She's won that district in many cases with well over 70% of the vote. You don't push aside someone like that and expect it to work.

iyraste1313

Apparently, Gabbard’s strategy now is to continue to present to voters, both in the Democratic and in the Republican Parties as well as to independents, her vision of the type of country that America ought to be (not the type of country — for example — that invaded Iraq on the basis of lies in 2003); and, if she becomes rejected by her own Democratic Party, then, at that time, she might be able, with her now-established name-recognition and clearly articulated policy-views, to become the Green Party’s 2020 candidate and to present an appeal designed in order to draw enough independents, plus both Democrats and Republicans who have come to reject their former Parties, so as to stand a realistic chance of winning in 2020, in essentially the same way that Abraham Lincoln did in 1860, when the Republican Party replaced the previous Whig Party.

If the Democratic Party nominates Bernie Sanders, then she wouldn’t do that, but, otherwise, she might. Consequently, any intelligent Democrat whose main  concern is to win the Presidency in 2020 (so as to have a Democrat as President starting in 2021) will be voting for Sanders, because, otherwise, Tulsi Gabbard could well throw a monkey wrench into the Presidential campaign machinery for both  of the existing Parties — and that might produce a replacement of the Democratic Party by the Green Party, in the same way that the Republicans replaced the Whigs in 1860. It could happen again — but this time to the Democratic Party.

Aristotleded24

iyraste1313 wrote:
Apparently, Gabbard’s strategy now is to continue to present to voters, both in the Democratic and in the Republican Parties as well as to independents, her vision of the type of country that America ought to be (not the type of country — for example — that invaded Iraq on the basis of lies in 2003); and, if she becomes rejected by her own Democratic Party, then, at that time, she might be able, with her now-established name-recognition and clearly articulated policy-views, to become the Green Party’s 2020 candidate and to present an appeal designed in order to draw enough independents, plus both Democrats and Republicans who have come to reject their former Parties, so as to stand a realistic chance of winning in 2020, in essentially the same way that Abraham Lincoln did in 1860, when the Republican Party replaced the previous Whig Party.

If the Democratic Party nominates Bernie Sanders, then she wouldn’t do that, but, otherwise, she might. Consequently, any intelligent Democrat whose main  concern is to win the Presidency in 2020 (so as to have a Democrat as President starting in 2021) will be voting for Sanders, because, otherwise, Tulsi Gabbard could well throw a monkey wrench into the Presidential campaign machinery for both  of the existing Parties — and that might produce a replacement of the Democratic Party by the Green Party, in the same way that the Republicans replaced the Whigs in 1860. It could happen again — but this time to the Democratic Party.

Tulsi has said she will not run as a Green

Aristotleded24

I am very puzzled by her decision to skip the December debate. She said she did so because the DNC is biased. Well, I can't think of a better forum to say so than to call them out directly to their face for that on live TV. That is what generates coverage. That is how she made a name for herself as a anti-militarist politician by calling out Tim Ryan, and how she ended Kamala Harris' political career. She does not have the support or organization to make a strong showing in states like New Hampshire and South Carolina, where she is focusing the bulk of her current campaign. It is also disrespetful to her supporters who fought very hard to get her donation and support levels to a point where she would qualify to be on the national stage. I don't know that she's doing, but it comes across as petulant and whiny. So the game is rigged against you? You think you're the first politician who's made that claim? Then jump right into the ring and defend yourself.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Tulsi lost me with her support for Narendra Modi.  

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

At this point only incel bros are her biggest fans. When she went on Rubin's podcast, I turned my back on her. She's a charade,not a progressive..I'm not sure she is even a liberal.

Aristotleded24

alan smithee wrote:
At this point only incel bros are her biggest fans. When she went on Rubin's podcast, I turned my back on her. She's a charade,not a progressive..I'm not sure she is even a liberal.

Even people who were moderately supportive of her heard her interview and were startled by how she responded. Marianne Williamson was on Rubin's podcast as well and pushed back against Rubin's framing much more effectively.

contrarianna

Aristotleded24 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
At this point only incel bros are her biggest fans. When she went on Rubin's podcast, I turned my back on her. She's a charade,not a progressive..I'm not sure she is even a liberal.

Even people who were moderately supportive of her heard her interview and were startled by how she responded. Marianne Williamson was on Rubin's podcast as well and pushed back against Rubin's framing much more effectively.

Of course Gabbard has zero chance of getting a DNC nomination, her stated anti-interventionism and downsizing military spending alone would guarantee that. 

I hadn't seen that long interview until now-- 1hr & 12 min. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gy797D3cAY

I have yet to see made here any substantive negative criticism of the intereview itself.  Is she making outrageous claims? Is she falsely criticizing the DNC selection process? Or is it her failure to shout as she refutes Rubin on Trump? Is the interview too civil when talking to a designated enemy?

For many, merely being interviewed by a designated enemy is in itself enough to dismiss without watching.
Dismissing what someone says based only on where they say it is so prevalent on Rabble it really deserves a separate thread.  A good starting point:

Attacking The Source: The Establishment Loyalist’s Favorite Online Tactic
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE

....Then you share a link to an article or video which makes a well-sourced, independently verifiable case for the point you are trying to make.

Then, the inevitable happens.

“LMAO! That outlet!” they scoff in response. “That outlet is propaganda/fake news/conspiracy theory trash!”

Or something to that effect. You’ll encounter this tactic over and over and over again if you continually engage in online political discourse with people who don’t agree with you. It doesn’t matter if you’re literally just linking to an interview featuring some public figure saying a thing you’d claimed they said. It doesn’t matter if you’re linking to a WikiLeaks publication of a verified authentic document. Unless you’re linking to CNN/Fox News (whichever fits the preferred ideology of the establishment loyalist you’re debating), they’ll bleat “fake news!” or “propaganda!” or “Russia!” as though that in and of itself magically invalidates the point you’re trying to make.

....Of course some nuance is needed here. Remember that alternative media is just like anything else: there’s good and bad, even within the same outlet, so make sure what you’re sharing is solid and not just some schmuck making a baseless claim. You can’t just post a link to some Youtuber making an unsubstantiated assertion and then accuse the person you’re debating of attacking the source when they dismiss it. That which has been presented without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, and if the link you’re citing consists of nothing other than unproven assertions by someone they’ve got no reason to take at their word, they can rightly dismiss it.

If however the claims in the link you’re citing are logically coherent arguments or well-documented facts presented in a way that people can independently fact-check, it doesn’t matter if you’re citing CNN or Sputnik. The only advantage to using CNN when possible would be that it allows you to skip the part where they perform the online equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and humming.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/11/28/attacking-the-source-the-establi...

Aristotleded24

contrarianna wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
At this point only incel bros are her biggest fans. When she went on Rubin's podcast, I turned my back on her. She's a charade,not a progressive..I'm not sure she is even a liberal.

Even people who were moderately supportive of her heard her interview and were startled by how she responded. Marianne Williamson was on Rubin's podcast as well and pushed back against Rubin's framing much more effectively.

Of course Gabbard has zero chance of getting a DNC nomination, her stated anti-interventionism and downsizing military spending alone would guarantee that. 

I hadn't seen that long interview until now-- 1hr & 12 min. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gy797D3cAY

I have yet to see made here any substantive negative criticism of the intereview itself.  Is she making outrageous claims? Is she falsely criticizing the DNC selection process? Or is it her failure to shout as she refutes Rubin on Trump? Is the interview too civil when talking to a designated enemy?

Excellent question contrarianna. Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk highlighted the problematic parts of the interview, and he's been even handed in his coverage of her. When Dave Rubin said that it didn't seem like the other Democrats loved the country like Tulsi did, she didn't push back against that. "They hate our contry" is a very common tactic that political hucksters throw at their opponents. When he also made the strawman that Democrats are in favour of open borders, she didn't push back on that either. Another tactic that political hucksters use is to invoke hordes of "foreigners" coming in and over-running the country. She gives the sense that she agrees with Rubin's basic framing.

iyraste1313

Tulsi Gabbard: Soleimani assassination an “act of war” against Iran

 Posted on January 3, 2020      by S. Smith    

Tulsi responds to the unbelievably reckless and cowardly murder of Iran’s top military commander in Iraq.

Iran has thus far suffered gracefully under repeated taunts, threats, sanctions, and various sabotages from the United States. But the murder, surely an act of terror as well, of a widely respected, and very popular, military leader will probably be the last straw. Iran will retaliate, giving the green light for an enormously lopsided counterattack from the US. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Iranians will die. Why did it come to this? It appears that Iran’s only real “crime” is wounding the ego of Trump and the entire military establishment. Now Trump is boasting of the murder openly. How many Americans abroad will now die because of what he’s done?

Our government has been looking to fight a war against Iran for over a decade, and it now appears that they will finally get their war. It won’t be clean, or short. It will be the Iraq and Afghanistan for a new generation. But the price will be far larger than any war in recent memory.

contrarianna

Aristotleded24 wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 .....Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk highlighted the problematic parts of the interview, and he's been even handed in his coverage of her. When Dave Rubin said that it didn't seem like the other Democrats loved the country like Tulsi did, she didn't push back against that. "They hate our contry" is a very common tactic that political hucksters throw at their opponents. When he also made the strawman that Democrats are in favour of open borders, she didn't push back on that either. Another tactic that political hucksters use is to invoke hordes of "foreigners" coming in and over-running the country. She gives the sense that she agrees with Rubin's basic framing.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer and link, Aristotle.  Kyle Kulinski has legitimate grounds for his criticism of Gabbard's lack of reaction to Rubin's biased framing, but also to his credit rejects the usual attacks that slam her for being interviewed by "the enemy", and he also rakes the DNC's exclusion of her from the debates by the dishonest use of "approved polls". 

Also Gabbard, rather than simply relying on her anti-interventionist positions as self-evident, moral and sane (marked by her forceful response to Trump's recent war crimes), relies a lot on her military background & flag waving to defend her advocacy of anti-interventionism and downsized military spending. That reliance on flag waving is a bit repugnant and shouldn't be necessary, but such stances go some distance to mollify the brainwashed jingoism of many voters--though it hasn't stopped some of her fellow Democrats and media shills from saying she is a Russian operative.  Kulinski is right that she should have confronted Rubin's biased framing in her answers, though it's hardly surprising that she hasn't lept to her fellow candidates defense at every opportunity when they are mostly silent over her debate exclusion:

The reason for Gabbard’s exclusion from the debate is multifaceted yet simple. It is clear from the DNC’s refusal to debate the issue of climate change that the Wall Street-owned party does not want to discuss war and foreign policy, either. The first two Democratic Party debates saw a total of nineteen minutes spent on foreign policy questions. Foreign policy makes up the majority of Gabbard’s presidential campaign. Even though her political record is slightly more hawkish than Bernie Sanders, Gabbard spends far more time placing an end to U.S. regime change wars on the top of the political agenda. For this, Gabbard has been labeled a “dupe” of Russia and attacked at every turn by the Democratic Party establishment....

https://ahtribune.com/us/2020-election/3438-tulsi-gabbard-exclusion-from...

Even Bernie, despite Gabbard going the distance to support him in his getting screwed over by the DNC in 2016, has not, as far as I know, spoken out for his "good friend" Gabbard getting screwed over by the same organization. I don't much fault his self-protective evasion in the face of DNC powerbrokers and I would still prefer him to all others candidates if he had the best chance of beating Trump:

Bernie DNC/Gabbard question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QXHIMSN7eI

On Open Borders:
I think Sanders is in the right ballpark when he says the idea of "open borders" is a "Koch idea" (or at least the oligarchy in general) eager to exploit cheap labour and kill unions in a race to the bottom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

Whatever one's position on immigration, I don't think either the brief response of Gabbard or Kulinski's counter give a reliable picture of Democratic candidates statements on immigration since there is no real consensus on "decriminalization" vs. "a civil matter". Part of the issue is how one defines "open borders". If it is technically illegal to enter a country but the penalty for doing so is insignificant or underenforced, one could argue either way that the borders are "open" or not.  

In response to the Washinngton Post poll question,"Would you seek the repeal of criminal penalties for people apprehended while crossing the border?" 

6 Dem candidates answered "Yes", 5 answered "No". Gabbard is quoted as saying: 

“That's something that I'm looking at. I think decriminalizing could lead to open borders. We need safe, secure borders in this country,” Gabbard said on The View. During the second Democratic debate, Gabbard said “we can and should have both secure borders as well as humane immigration policies.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/immigration/

The devil is in the details of actual legislation, and degree of enforcement. Whether one agrees with it or not, having a criminal prosecution option for illegal entry itself is pretty standard for most countries, including Canada:  https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php  

Yet there is fortunately more Democratic consensus over key Trump racist policies and brutal family destroying incarceration:

The Democratic response has been fierce opposition to most of Trump’s policies — including a ban on travelers from Muslim countries and a lapsed enforcement policy that led to the separation of thousands of children from their parents. The candidates support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants now in the country and most support higher refugee quotas, but the party has been less clear in laying out a vision for handling a new wave of migrants from Central America, and it has divided over whether to be more permissive than the Obama administration was in how it handles recent border crossers and those living in the country without permission.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/

NDPP

Gabbard, Buttigieg Criticized For Suggesting US Shares Blame for Downed Ukrainian Airplane

https://youtu.be/hsjWI2ZvUIE

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

Gabbard, Buttigieg Criticized For Suggesting US Shares Blame for Downed Ukrainian Airplane

https://youtu.be/hsjWI2ZvUIE

Some Democrats are being rightfully exposed. It is possible that this will result in Sanders coming ahead of Biden now.

Pages