Tulsi Gabbard

Wed, 2020-01-22 12:58

Sean in Ottawa

iyraste1313 wrote:

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) on Wednesday filed a defamation lawsuit against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, without naming Gabbard directly, suggested the presidential candidate was “the favorite of the Russians.”

...My prediction stands, that she will run as independent, especially considering tht Hillary may still be the democratic candidate, what with Biden exposed, anyone but Sanders!

I have no idea why you could possibly think so.

Gabbard has a net worth estimated at about $500,000 and was able to raises $9 million through her campaign.

She does not have the personal resources and does not have the public support tobe a party candidate. An independent would need even more. It is very difficult for a canddiate to go from a party to independent and much more when they have had to drop out already for lack of both support and funds.

She is 38 years old and not some outside person who drifted into the Democratic party -- she is elected representative. The idea that she would blow her career as a Democrat on an impossible bid for President when she is this young and can come back at just 42 just makes no sense.

My guess is she will try to do better in 2024.

Wed, 2020-01-22 18:20

#103

NDPP

#StandWithGreenwald

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1220041814108819456

"For years Glenn Greenwald has exposed abuses at the highest levels of government and his investigative journalism deserves our support. If we allow the powerful to silence such journalists our democracy and freedom is in peril."

Fri, 2020-03-06 00:16

#104

iyraste1313

DNC Scrambles To Change Debate Threshold After Gabbard Qualifies

by Tyler Durden

Wed, 03/04/2020 - 20:05

Twitter Facebook Reddit Email

....as I originally stated...and what seems ever more certain, what with the organized denial of the Sanders candidacy...Tulsi will run as a third party candidate....

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

On a CNN panel on Monday, host John King spoke with Politico reporter Alex Thompson about the possibility of Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard qualifying on Super Tuesday for the party’s primary debate in Phoenix later this month.

“I will note this, she’s from Hawaii,” King said of Gabbard.

“She’s a congresswoman from Hawaii; American Samoa votes on Super Tuesday. The rules as they now stand, if you get a delegate, you’re back in the debates. As of now. Correct?”

“Yeah, they haven’t, I mean, that’s been the rule for every single debate,” Thompson replied.

“And the DNC has not released their official guidance for the March 15 debate in Phoenix, but it would be very obvious that they are trying to cancel Tulsi, who they’re scared of a third party run, if they then change the rules to prevent her to rejoin the debate stage.”

And indeed, as the smoke clears from the Super Tuesday frenzy, this is precisely what appears to have transpired.

“The Gabbard campaign said it was informed that it would net two delegates from the caucuses in American Samoa, which will allocate a total of six pledged delegates,” The Hill reports today. “However, a report from CNN said that the candidate will receive only one delegate from the territory on Tuesday evening.”

“Tulsi Gabbard may have just qualified for the next Democratic debate thanks to American Samoa,” reads a fresh Business Insider headline. “Under the most recent rules, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii may have qualified for the next televised debate by snagging a delegate in American Samoa’s primary.”

“If Tulsi Gabbard gets a delegate out of American Samoa, as it appears she has done, she will likely qualify for the next Democratic debate,” tweeted Washington Post’s Dave Weigel. “We don’t have new debate rules yet, but party has been inviting any candidate who gets a delegate.”

Rank-and-file supporters of the Hawaii congresswoman enjoyed a brief celebration on social media, before having their hopes dashed minutes later by an announcement from the DNC’s Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa that “the threshold will go up”.

“We have two more debates — of course the threshold will go up,” tweeted Hinojosa literally minutes after Gabbard was awarded the delegate. “By the time we have the March debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we are in the race, as it always has.”

“DNC wastes no time in announcing they will rig the next debates to exclude Tulsi,” journalist Michael Tracey tweeted in response.

This outcome surprised nobody, least of all Gabbard supporters. The blackout on the Tulsi 2020 campaign has reached such extreme heights this year that you now routinely see pundits saying things like there are no more people of color in the race, or that Elizabeth Warren is the only woman remaining in the primary. They’re not just ignoring her, they’re actually erasing her. They’re weaving a whole alternative reality out of narrative in which she is literally, officially, no longer in the race.

After Gabbard announced her presidential candidacy in January of last year I wrote an article explaining that I was excited about her campaign because she would severely disrupt establishment narratives, and, for the remainder of 2019, that’s exactly what she did. She spoke unauthorized truths about Syria, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, she drew attention to the plight of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and said she’d drop all charges against both men if elected, she destroyed the hawkish, jingoistic positions of fellow candidates on the debate stage and arguably single-handedly destroyed Kamala Harris’ run.

The narrative managers had their hands full with her. The Russia smears were relentless, the fact that she met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was brought up at every possible opportunity in every debate and interview, and she was scoffed at and derided at every turn.

Now, in 2020, none of that is happening. There’s a near-total media blackout on the Gabbard campaign, such that I now routinely encounter rank-and-file liberals on social media who tell me they honestly had no idea she’s still running. She’s been completely redacted out of the narrative matrix.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

So it’s unsurprising that the DNC felt comfortable striding forward and openly announcing a change in the debate threshold literally the very moment Gabbard crossed it. These people understand narrative control, and they know full well that they have secured enough of it on the Tulsi Problem that they’ll be able to brazenly rig her right off the stage without suffering any meaningful consequences.

The establishment narrative warfare against Gabbard’s campaign dwarfs anything we’ve seen against Sanders, and the loathing and dismissal they’ve been able to generate have severely hamstrung her run. It turns out that a presidential candidate can get away with talking about economic justice and plutocracy when it comes to domestic policy, and some light dissent on matters of foreign policy will be tolerated, but aggressively attacking the heart of the actual bipartisan foreign policy consensus will get you shut down, smeared and shunned like nothing else. This is partly because US presidents have a lot more authority over foreign affairs than domestic, and it’s also because endless war is the glue which holds the empire together.

And now they’re working to install a corrupt, right-wing warmongering dementia patient as the party’s nominee. And from the looks of the numbers I’ve seen from Super Tuesday so far, it looks entirely likely that those manipulations will prove successful.

All this means is that the machine is exposing its mechanics to the view of the mainstream public. Both the Gabbard campaign and the Sanders campaign have been useful primarily in this way; not because the establishment would ever let them actually become president, but because they force the unelected manipulators who really run things in the most powerful government on earth to show the public their box of dirty tricks.

Fri, 2020-12-11 06:31

#105

josh

Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Anti-Transgender Bill After Claiming To Be LGBTQ-Friendly

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5fd2de33c5b66a75841389b5/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Fri, 2020-12-11 06:36

#106

josh

Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduces born-alive bill in US House

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-democratic-congresswoman-introduces-born-alive-bill-in-u.s-house

Fri, 2020-12-11 06:42

#107

NDPP

Didn't you claim she was working for Putin too?

Fri, 2020-12-11 06:53

#108

josh

Working for? As in being paid? No. But it's clear she is quite sympathetic to right-wing authoritarian leaders. Especially Modi. Whatever the virtues of some of her other positions, they are dwarfed by that.

Mon, 2020-12-14 18:39

#109

NDPP

Thank heavens that exemplary paragon of goodness and light Joe Biden was chosen instead. I suspect your actual dislike for Gabbard is probably due more to her antiwar, anti-imperialist views than anything else.

India-US Relations: Common Values, Shared Interests

https://youtu.be/DWxbQZV4urM

"Strong bipartisan support for the multifaceted India/American partnership. But the best is yet to come."

"There are things that are happening with the Indian government that I disagree with. I don't pretend to support or approve or endorse all the practices of the ruling party in India. I've been very consistent over the years in calling out persecution and bigotry based on religion wherever it takes place." Tulsi Gabbard, 2019

Mon, 2020-12-14 21:20

(Reply to #109) #110

kropotkin1951

josh wrote:

Working for? As in being paid? No. But it's clear she is quite sympathetic to right-wing authoritarian leaders. Especially Modi. Whatever the virtues of some of her other positions, they are dwarfed by that.

All mainstream US politicians, from both parties, are quite sympathetic to right-wing authoritarian leaders. I guess you like the ones we installed in Latin and South America better than the home grown variety in other parts of the world. The consensus seems to be from your sources that right-wing authoritarian leaders are only a problem when they stop taking orders from Wall Street.

Sun, 2020-12-20 14:46

#111

Mobo2000

Won't hold my breath on this passing, but it's a good gesture at least:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/530498-massie-gabbard-team-up-on-bill...

"The bill would also make retaliation against any federal national security whistleblowers, such as Edward Snowden, illegal and require that the Government Accountability Office “regularly monitor domestic surveillance programs.”

It would also ban “government-mandated back doors” built into electronics and software that allows the government to get past any privacy technology, Gabbard said. "

Tue, 2020-12-29 02:28

(Reply to #111) #112

Aristotleded24

Mobo2000 wrote:

Won't hold my breath on this passing, but it's a good gesture at least:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/530498-massie-gabbard-team-up-on-bill...

"The bill would also make retaliation against any federal national security whistleblowers, such as Edward Snowden, illegal and require that the Government Accountability Office “regularly monitor domestic surveillance programs.”

It would also ban “government-mandated back doors” built into electronics and software that allows the government to get past any privacy technology, Gabbard said. "

Yeah, I wondered why she was introducing this now as she is on her way out and we are in the lame duck session of this Congress. Will this bill die upon the current session expiring? If so, does it have any way to move forward?

Sun, 2021-04-25 20:04

#113

josh

Gabbard embarrassed herself by seeking to use the Armenian genocide to smear Islam. Apparently trying to emulate one of heroes, Modi, she only revealed her ignorance of history.

https://twitter.com/SophiaArmen/status/1386463303598166018?s=20

Mon, 2021-04-26 02:51

#114

NDPP

Also hated by the Democrat elite for her crticism of foreign policy debacles such as Syria. And according to Hillary Clinton: 'the favorite of the Russians'.

"1.5m Armenians were killed over 100 years ago by the Islamist Ottoman Empire. It is shameful it has taken so long for formal recognition of this genocide to occur, never done previously for fear of angering Turkey. My aloha is with Armenians everywhere as we remember them today."

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1386103621608099842

Mon, 2021-04-26 07:02

(Reply to #114) #115

voice of the damned

josh wrote:

Gabbard embarrassed herself by seeking to use the Armenian genocide to smear Islam. Apparently trying to emulate one of heroes, Modi, she only revealed her ignorance of history.

https://twitter.com/SophiaArmen/status/1386463303598166018?s=20

That tweet appears to have vanished. In the one that survives, she refers to the "Islamist Ottoman Empire", with the opening adjective being, indeed, totally unneccessary.

Mon, 2021-04-26 09:10

#116

josh

And historically incorrect in 1915.

Mon, 2021-04-26 10:11

(Reply to #116) #117

voice of the damned

josh wrote:

And historically incorrect in 1915.

Yeah, it gives you the impression that the people behind the Armenian Genocide were the types who get labeled "Islamist" today. Whereas, if I've got my history correct, they were, relatively speaking, mostly secular in their political outlook.

And that statement also taints Ms. Gabbard's otherwise credible opposition to intervention in Syria. Because it leaves you thinking that such positions might just be pandering to the type of people who say "Why the hell are we trying to get rid of Assad? He knows how to deal with those muzzies."

Sun, 2021-11-14 12:18

#118

josh

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1459888599806185473?s=21

Spoken like the Republican she really is.

Mon, 2022-02-21 13:25

#119

josh

And now she's gone full fascist, speaking at the notorious CPAC conference. Maybe she's substituting for Modi.

https://twitter.com/RealGregorad/status/1495815128503439364?s=20&t=IaMoD...

Wed, 2022-04-20 21:08

#120

josh

Tulsi Gabbard, a career homophobe I've been reporting on since 2004 when she was demonizing gay kids from her seat in the HI legislature, told Fox News Tuesday that the #DontSayGay law doesn't go far enough. Because she hates LGBTQ folks and always has.

https://twitter.com/VABVOX/status/1516684751104614400?s=20&t=AhupRUeUohb...

Sat, 2022-06-04 21:01

#121

josh

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1533236908935069696?s=20&t=vcue7v...

Sun, 2022-06-05 01:26

#122

NorthReport

Is Gabbard not correct about that josh?

Tulsa Gabbard says that Joe Biden is risking nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine.

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-joe-biden-russia-nuclear-weapon-u...

Sun, 2022-06-05 03:25

(Reply to #122) #123

JKR

josh wrote:

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1533236908935069696?s=20&t=vcue7v...

Tulsi’s now supporting Jenna Ellis and NewsMax! She’s really gone round the bend!

Sun, 2022-06-05 03:27

(Reply to #123) #124

JKR

NorthReport wrote:
Is Gabbard not correct about that josh?

Are you also now supporting Jenna Ellis and NewsMax?

Sun, 2022-06-05 09:15

(Reply to #124) #125

josh

NorthReport wrote:
Is Gabbard not correct about that josh?

Tulsa Gabbard says that Joe Biden is risking nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine.

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-joe-biden-russia-nuclear-weapon-u...

I don’t think his policy has yet extended to the point where I would call it a risk.

Sun, 2022-06-05 13:32

(Reply to #125) #126

kropotkin1951

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Is Gabbard not correct about that josh?

Are you also now supporting Jenna Ellis and NewsMax?

What do you not understand about the concept of a duopoly? I find that most of what the Democrats say about Republicans is true and most of what the Republicans say about Democrats is true. It seems to me that both sides of the duopoly are corrupt and immoral but you somehow think cheering for one side is righteous.

The system that was devised by white slave owners to control the prole instead of the British Home Office is working exactly as designed. The most absurd thing is that in the face of the obvious breakdown in the political structures there are no calls for rewriting the constitution. Instead Americans debate what people, who have been dead for over two hundred years thought the political system should be. The US oligarchs have always loved American style "democracy."

Sun, 2022-06-05 15:30

#127

JKR

I agree that both the Democrats and Republicans are both very flawed and that American Style Democracy should have gone out of style a long time ago but even for America NewsMax and their "news" personalities like Jenna Ellis are bat shit crazy.

This is Ellis's pinned tweet on Twitter:

I’m going on record now:

If they try to cancel Christianity, if they try to force me to apologize or recant my Faith, I will not bend, I will not waver, I will not break.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand.

And I’m proud to be an American.

Sun, 2022-06-05 16:11

#128

kropotkin1951

Sounds like a Catholic during the Cold War. I was raised to believe that Reds would try to make me recant my religion and the only thing to do if that happened was to become a martyr. Better dead than red was a favourite line from my youth.

Sun, 2022-06-05 16:13

#129

kropotkin1951

The strange thing about constitutions is Canada's has god as part of it and the US does not.

Sun, 2022-06-05 16:54

#130

JKR

I think the U.S. states all have god in their constitutions. The whole concept of god is also pretty fluid and amorphous. The American evangelical / Republican god is getting batshit crazy.

Sun, 2022-06-05 16:56

#131

JKR

Mon, 2022-06-06 14:45

(Reply to #131) #132

kropotkin1951

JKR wrote:

I think the U.S. states all have god in their constitutions. The whole concept of god is also pretty fluid and amorphous. The American evangelical / Republican god is getting batshit crazy.

Seven states make it illegal to hold office if you are an atheist. The closer you look at US "democracy" the more bizarre it gets.

Mon, 2022-06-06 14:56

#133

JKR

I try not to look too close at US democracy. It gives me a headache.

Mon, 2022-06-06 21:20

(Reply to #133) #134

josh

kropotkin1951 wrote:
JKR wrote:

I think the U.S. states all have god in their constitutions. The whole concept of god is also pretty fluid and amorphous. The American evangelical / Republican god is getting batshit crazy.

Seven states make it illegal to hold office if you are an atheist. The closer you look at US "democracy" the more bizarre it gets.

Which states are these? The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious tests for holding public office.

Tue, 2022-06-07 00:51

(Reply to #134) #135

DistinguishedFlyer

josh wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:
JKR wrote:

I think the U.S. states all have god in their constitutions. The whole concept of god is also pretty fluid and amorphous. The American evangelical / Republican god is getting batshit crazy.

Seven states make it illegal to hold office if you are an atheist. The closer you look at US "democracy" the more bizarre it gets.

Which states are these? The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious tests for holding public office.

Torcaso v. Watkins, a 1961 Supreme Court ruling, deemed said state constitutional provisions unenforceable. Several still have them but they carry no weight.

Tue, 2022-06-07 12:40

(Reply to #135) #136

kropotkin1951

DistinguishedFlyer wrote:

josh wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think the U.S. states all have god in their constitutions. The whole concept of god is also pretty fluid and amorphous. The American evangelical / Republican god is getting batshit crazy.

Seven states make it illegal to hold office if you are an atheist. The closer you look at US "democracy" the more bizarre it gets.

Which states are these? The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious tests for holding public office.

Torcaso v. Watkins, a 1961 Supreme Court ruling, deemed said state constitutional provisions unenforceable. Several still have them but they carry no weight.

That is all very true however the current Supreme Court is very capable of revisiting those provisions using a state rights lens. Seems they are giving way more leeway to laws excluding participation in the democratic process than in the past.

Tue, 2022-06-07 12:42

#137

JKR

Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale is becoming realer by the day.

Tue, 2022-06-07 15:28

(Reply to #137) #138

josh

kropotkin1951 wrote:
DistinguishedFlyer wrote:

josh wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think the U.S. states all have god in their constitutions. The whole concept of god is also pretty fluid and amorphous. The American evangelical / Republican god is getting batshit crazy.

Seven states make it illegal to hold office if you are an atheist. The closer you look at US "democracy" the more bizarre it gets.

Which states are these? The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious tests for holding public office.

Torcaso v. Watkins, a 1961 Supreme Court ruling, deemed said state constitutional provisions unenforceable. Several still have them but they carry no weight.

That is all very true however the current Supreme Court is very capable of revisiting those provisions using a state rights lens. Seems they are giving way more leeway to laws excluding participation in the democratic process than in the past.

Hard to believe that is true since both parties are part of the same “duopoly.”

Tue, 2022-06-07 20:46

(Reply to #138) #139

kropotkin1951

josh wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:
DistinguishedFlyer wrote:

josh wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think the U.S. states all have god in their constitutions. The whole concept of god is also pretty fluid and amorphous. The American evangelical / Republican god is getting batshit crazy.

Seven states make it illegal to hold office if you are an atheist. The closer you look at US "democracy" the more bizarre it gets.

Which states are these? The U.S. Constitution states that there shall be no religious tests for holding public office.

Torcaso v. Watkins, a 1961 Supreme Court ruling, deemed said state constitutional provisions unenforceable. Several still have them but they carry no weight.

That is all very true however the current Supreme Court is very capable of revisiting those provisions using a state rights lens. Seems they are giving way more leeway to laws excluding participation in the democratic process than in the past.

Hard to believe that is true since both parties are part of the same “duopoly.”

Torcaso v. Watkins, a 1961 is as safe a precedent as Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS with Citizen's United have handed the electioneering to billionaires to play with. That is way more dangerous than barring a few atheists from holding office.

Fri, 2022-08-12 20:43

#140

josh

Gabbard substitute hosting for her buddy Tucker Carlson on Fox. Another of Tucker's buddies, Glenn Greenwald, was too busy interviewing Alex Jones to make an appearance.

Sat, 2022-08-13 08:52

#141

NDPP

"I would appear on Fox News more easily than I would on NPR."

Chomsky

Sat, 2022-08-13 10:37

(Reply to #141) #142

Michael Moriarity

NDPP wrote:

"I would appear on Fox News more easily than I would on NPR."

Chomsky

I can believe Chomsky may have said that, but I'm interested in the context, if you have a link.

Sat, 2022-08-13 11:30

#143

NDPP

It came from here. Sorry no context:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/noam_chomsky_635594

Chomsky on Fox.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/2347339727001

Sat, 2022-08-13 12:03

(Reply to #143) #144

JKR

NDPP wrote:

It came from here. Sorry no context:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/noam_chomsky_635594

Chomsky on Fox.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/2347339727001

Is that a Fox News broadcast?!? The production quality looks like something made by a YouTube blogger. Unlike Tulsi, I don't think Chomsky supports Fox News.

Sat, 2022-08-13 12:04

#145

NDPP

I suspect neither Chomsky nor I 'support' Fox News. Nor CNN, MSNBC, WaPo or the New York Times for that matter. Unlike some people here.

Sat, 2022-08-13 12:57

#146

kropotkin1951

I think all US media is propaganda however it is impossible to live in Canada without consuming a certain amount of it. Fox or MSNBC are the same to me. NPR is really good on some issues but like all of US media when it gets to foreign policy its record is mixed bag of American exceptionalism and mea culpas with a pledge to set America right again.

Sat, 2022-08-13 17:48

(Reply to #146) #147

JKR

NDPP wrote:

I suspect neither Chomsky nor I 'support' Fox News. Nor CNN, MSNBC, WaPo or the New York Times for that matter. Unlike some people here.

On the other hand Tulsi does seem to support Fox News.

Sat, 2022-08-13 20:18

(Reply to #147) #148

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:
NDPP wrote:

I suspect neither Chomsky nor I 'support' Fox News. Nor CNN, MSNBC, WaPo or the New York Times for that matter. Unlike some people here.

On the other hand Tulsi does seem to support Fox News.

And she has been outspoken in her support of the far-right, anti-worker, pro-austerity, Hindu-supremacist PM of India, Narendra Modi,

Sun, 2022-08-14 10:26

#149

Mobo2000

Here is Tulsi on Fox speaking about the historical ineffectiveness of US sanctions policy.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1558535917782142976?ref_src=twsrc%5Eg...

The Amazon union organizer went on Tucker Carlson in April, which was widely regarded as a successful appearance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYZDIJ1jDH0

I think it is a mistake for left public figures to hold their nose and avoid Fox, and for progressives to scold the ones that do. The left needs this audience, even if elements of it will never be won over.

Sun, 2022-08-14 12:22

(Reply to #149) #150

kropotkin1951

Ken Burch wrote:
JKR wrote:
NDPP wrote:

I suspect neither Chomsky nor I 'support' Fox News. Nor CNN, MSNBC, WaPo or the New York Times for that matter. Unlike some people here.

On the other hand Tulsi does seem to support Fox News.

And she has been outspoken in her support of the far-right, anti-worker, pro-austerity, Hindu-supremacist PM of India, Narendra Modi,

Did she get involved in Indian internal politics or is she merely supporting the leader of a sovereign state. I more and more agree that the UN Charter was right in its intent to have all countries just stay the fuck out of other countries internal affairs. The West believed that until we were convinced it was our duty to bomb Yugoslavia.

Sun, 2022-08-14 13:13

#151

epaulo13

..the un has zero control over capital and governments serve in the interest of capital. and capital thrives on stealing wealth from anyone and everyone. this is the repeating cycle.

Tulsi Gabbard

Pages