Joe Rogan interviews Tulsi Gabbard

[Peace Piper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIb2lmHgd5s

"Think about how counterproductive our acting as the world's police has been"

Tulsi Gabbard
‏Verified account @TulsiGabbard

The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive responsibility to declare war.
The last time it did? 1941.
Ever since, Congress has ceded this power to the President and it has cost us dearly.
Support my resolution to end Presidential wars #HR922
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1038473292007518208

http://costofwar.com

[shakey1]

The voice of reason... too bad her resolution will fall on deaf ears.

[juleswin]

Didn't she vote for more sanctions on Russia and Syria?

[RJ Liberty]

Didn't she vote for more sanctions on Russia and Syria?

Here's her record (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/tulsi-gabbard/). Voted yes on limiting government ability to read private citizens' communications; yes on allowing terminally ill patients to try unapproved treatments; yes on sanctions against North Korea, Iran, and Russia; yes on eliminating the medical device tax; voted no on warrantless wiretapping; no on funding during the government shutdown; no on rescinding banking regulations.

[timosman]

Here's her record (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/tulsi-gabbard/). Voted yes on limiting government ability to read private citizens' communications; yes on allowing terminally ill patients to try unapproved treatments; yes on sanctions against North Korea, Iran, and Russia; yes on eliminating the medical device tax; voted no on warrantless wiretapping; no on funding during the government shutdown; no on rescinding banking regulations.

Obama 2.0

[Bern]

I listened to the entire ~2hr video. I don't usually listen to any Youtube more than a couple minutes long. She seems reasoned, reasonable and genuine. That alone puts her in rare company in D.C. I may not agree with her conclusions on every issue, but from what I have seen, she at least takes ownership of her decisions/responsibility so they are considered - not just paid for.

[Anti Globalist]

Add Tulsi Gabbard to the list of people who will never become president.

[Peace Piper]

Add Tulsi Gabbard to the list of people who will never become president.

That's exactly what almost everyone said about the idiot buffoon that is now dropping white phosphorus on Syria

[Peace Piper]

I listened to the entire ~2hr video. I don't usually listen to any Youtube more than a couple minutes long. She seems reasoned, reasonable and genuine. That alone puts her in rare company in D.C. I may not agree with her conclusions on every issue, but from what I have seen, she at least takes ownership of her decisions/responsibility so they are considered - not just paid for.

She's not perfect but she is making the end of these damn wars a priority and right now that's pretty important unless you don't care whether the US makes it into the next decade without fully becoming a 3rd world nation (unlikely at this point)

If the Democrats were smart they would run this person in 2020

But not only are they not smart, they are old, stale, corrupt, disgusting, despicable idiots. Most of the old guard Democrats hate this person with a passion. Which makes me like her even more.


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

[Peace Piper]

Here's her record (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/tulsi-gabbard/). Voted yes on limiting government ability to read private citizens' communications; yes on allowing terminally ill patients to try unapproved treatments; yes on sanctions against North Korea, Iran, and Russia; yes on eliminating the medical device tax; voted no on warrantless wiretapping; no on funding during the government shutdown; no on rescinding banking regulations.

She's not perfect.

BUT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING RIGHT NOW

ENDING THESE ILLEGAL WARS

[UWDude]

I like her...
...but I have learned never to trust those in the opposition party.

Would she be talking this way, if Hillary won?*

She uses the term "world's policemen"

I read that a lot, in the papers, when Bill Clinton was president, and Republicans were saying "we can't be the world's policeman", just a couple of years after Gulf War 1 under daddy Bush. So, I find it interesting she uses that phrase. She must know the history of Republican hypocrisy.



*Notice I did not say, "When democrats get back in power".

If the GOP plays its card right, Democrats are toast... ..forever.
The GOP must NOT overplay its hand.
All it's evil intentions can be carried out in 2028 or 2032.
But it must play good guy for a while, and play deal maker.

It is quite amazing to watch the Republicans, under Trump, starting to learn how to defeat an enemy.
The justice is so poetic too. The enemy can stop defeating itself, by calming down, and acting rational.
But they are so doped up on opiods and amphetamines, SSRI and.... literally amphetamines, they have lost all touch with reality.

They won't be undead. They won't be covered in sores, but they will be zombies.
Zombies are stupid, and have no chance, unless they have overwhelming numbers.
Even by realpolitik's measure known as the popular vote, the numbers are far from overwhelming.

Quite clearly, the predators will destroy their prey.
It's going to be bloody, but it's not even going to be close.
I predicted Trump's win and a mass suicide wave afterward.

The suicide wave never came, and I was perplexed.
Just let them lose a couple more times.

The only chance the Democratic party has, is to come to terms with it's radical elite tv watching wing, aka the liberal white woman.
It's not going to do that, because it is a party based on henpecking (which is incredibly effective, ask India's caste system).
But, it's women, those of the Democratic party, continue to destroy themselves, by intentionally making themselves uglier, more manly, and dirtier.
So while the caste system in India is essentially a socially constructed matriarchy, where love and family play a high role than money and politics (This not a judgement, it is observation. But observe, if you may, the feeling you got, when you read "love and family" over "money and politics". Both are real. One seems to have a "moral superiority", even though all four are powerful realities! ), it does so with a system where women try to maximize their beauty, as every person will maximize whatever they can to survive... ..women's natural instinct is to maximize their beauty. It works in India, would not work in the United States, unless women continued to maximize their beauty, therefore, their power. Liberal women are largely choosing to minimize or even fight their beauty, and then find themselves powerless, except in a sisterhood that secretly plots to over throw them.)

So, the white liberal woman is the coming demise of Democratic party.
It is hilarious, because she has destroyed her own beauty, in some kind of virtuous signal to her sisters.

...wow this is a tangent, what dopes it have to do with the OP?


Oh yeah, Tulsi Gabbards is hot. Nikki Haley is not.

Never take advice from an enemy. Thought you had learned, by now. Yeah... you... the one being paid to read this.

[Brian4Liberty]

Tulsi has been relatively silent lately. Wonder why?

[RJ Liberty]

I listened to the entire ~2hr video. I don't usually listen to any Youtube more than a couple minutes long. She seems reasoned, reasonable and genuine. That alone puts her in rare company in D.C. I may not agree with her conclusions on every issue, but from what I have seen, she at least takes ownership of her decisions/responsibility so they are considered - not just paid for.

I had the same reaction. And I love the fact that she's actually served her country.

[UWDude]

She should have lit up with Rogan, like Elon Musk did the episode before.

XD

Joe Rogan is phenomenal.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If anyone is thinking about it, a progressive/libertarian alliance is a pipedream. People keep trying to make it work, up to and including Rothbard and Ron Paul. And it always falls apart.

[Swordsmyth]

If anyone is thinking about it, a progressive/libertarian alliance is a pipedream. People keep trying to make it work, up to and including Rothbard and Ron Paul. And it always falls apart.

Because progressives worship the state, they may vote with us on specific issues once in awhile if we are lucky but they will always oppose reducing government.

[RJ Liberty]

Because progressives worship the state, they may vote with us on specific issues once in awhile if we are lucky but they will always oppose reducing government.

Tulsi voluntarily returned (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/21925551/rep-tulsi-gabbard-to-return-5-of-salary-because-of-sequester) 5% of her salary during the sequestration, and opposes the Military Industrial Complex's "regime change" agenda. She voted against (http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/the-700-billion-military-spending-package-could-pay-for-tuition-free-colleg) the NDAA and the military spending increases. Things are not as black and white as you assert.

[Swordsmyth]

Tulsi voluntarily returned (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/21925551/rep-tulsi-gabbard-to-return-5-of-salary-because-of-sequester) 5% of her salary during the sequestration, and opposes the Military Industrial Complex's "regime change" agenda. She voted against (http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/the-700-billion-military-spending-package-could-pay-for-tuition-free-colleg) the NDAA and the military spending increases. Things are not as black and white as you assert.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6679644#post6679644)

they may vote with us on specific issues once in awhile if we are lucky but they will always oppose reducing government.



https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000571) - 31%

[RJ Liberty]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000571) - 31%

Thanks for the resource, Swordsmyth. Clicking on the link reveals that she's listed as having 33 "good votes" (within the site's "freedom index"), which is not quite the same as "always opposing reducing government". And they gave McCain a 92% free (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000303) in the 111th Congress, which tells you their scoring is somehow very fucked up. That's higher than Ron Paul (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000583) in the 107th Congress (90%).

McCain. 92% constitutional. Please. (He was my Senator, BTW.)

By weighing every congressional vote equally, and not counting non-votes (such as when McCain didn't oppose funding ACORN using HUD funds), the site gives percentages that don't seem very accurate. Not saying it can't be a valuable tool, but it definitely requires a closer look at the stats it presents.

[dannno]

Anybody who is making negative comments without watching the video, I urge you to watch the video and count how many what you would agree are really important issues that she talks about and count how many times she talks about socialism and get back to me.

If you listen closely, you will even hear her advocate a reduction in social welfare spending :eek:

If all Democrats were replaced with people like her, our country would be a million times better.

[Swordsmyth]

Thanks for the resource, Swordsmyth. Clicking on the link reveals that she's listed as having 33 "good votes" (within the site's "freedom index"), which is not quite the same as "always opposing reducing government". And they gave McCain a 92% free (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=M000303) in the 111th Congress, which tells you their scoring is somehow very $#@!ed up. That's higher than Ron Paul (https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=P000583) in the 107th Congress (90%).

McCain. 92% constitutional. Please. (He was my Senator, BTW.)

By weighing every congressional vote equally, and not counting non-votes (such as when McCain didn't oppose funding ACORN using HUD funds), the site gives percentages that don't seem very accurate. Not saying it can't be a valuable tool, but it definitely requires a closer look at the stats it presents.

That McCain % in one year is a definite anomaly and no system is perfect but Gabbard is no friend of liberty, when I say "always oppose reducing government" I don't mean each and every vote, that would contradict the rest of what I said about them sometimes voting with us, I mean that their end goal is to increase government not to reduce it, if asked if they wanted smaller government they would never say yes.

[Swordsmyth]

Anybody who is making negative comments without watching the video, I urge you to watch the video and count how many what you would agree are really important issues that she talks about and count how many times she talks about socialism and get back to me.

If you listen closely, you will even hear her advocate a reduction in social welfare spending :eek:

If all Democrats were replaced with people like her, our country would be a million times better.
I'm sure she is better than many on some subjects but she must be worse than many on others or she would have ratings like these:

Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 31%
Status: Active Member of the House

Score Breakdown:
34% (115th Congress: 2017-2018); 22% (114th Congress: 2015-2016); 35% (113th Congress: 2013-2014)

[dannno]

I'm sure she is better than many on some subjects but she must be worse than many on others or she would have ratings like these:

Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 31%


Status: Active Member of the House

Score Breakdown:
34% (115th Congress: 2017-2018); 22% (114th Congress: 2015-2016); 35% (113th Congress: 2013-2014)


She is better than every other Democrat and a lot of Republicans if you are just looking at things from a % vote perspective, but more importantly, she doesn't buy the propaganda on foreign policy. She is the only Democrat who is outspoken against the wars and the war propaganda and the pro-Hillary propaganda from the Democratic party. She also doesn't have the Trump/Russia DS.

I am completely serious when I say our country would be a million times better if you replaced every Democrat with someone like her.

[Swordsmyth]

She is better than every other Democrat and a lot of Republicans if you are just looking at things from a % vote perspective, but more importantly, she doesn't buy the propaganda on foreign policy. She is the only Democrat who is outspoken against the wars and the war propaganda and the pro-Hillary propaganda from the Democratic party. She also doesn't have the Trump/Russia DS.

I am completely serious when I say our country would be a million times better if you replaced every Democrat with someone like her.

Some examples:





H R 3: Appropriations Cuts (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr3)


Vote Date: June 7, 2018
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll243.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This bill (H.R. 3) would cut nearly $15 billion from previously approved, unspent spending, including $7 billion from the Children’s Health Insurance Program and $4.3 billion from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.

The House passed H.R. 3 on June 7, 2018 by a vote of 210 to 206 (Roll Call 243). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because the spending falls outside the scope of constitutionally authorized federal powers, but also because the federal government needs to start reining in ballooning federal spending (and debt) somewhere in order to avert fiscal disaster. The cuts in this bill comprise only a fraction of one percent of total federal spending, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, most of the funding targeted by the bill would not be spent anyway. Yet modest cuts are better than none at all.






H R 2: Waters of the United States (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2018/h/203)


Vote Date: May 18, 2018
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll203.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Jim Banks (RInd.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule. On the floor of the House, Banks called this rule “the poster child of government overreach during the Obama administration,” noting that it gives “unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to broadly interpret what is a navigable waterway” under the Clean Water Act — so broadly that “even a puddle in a farm’s drainage ditch could be subjected to Federal regulation.”

The House adopted Banks’ amendment on May 18, 2018 by a vote of 238 to 173 (Roll Call 203). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because both federal water regulations and the EPA are unconstitutional, and if the rule were allowed to stand, activities such as farming and real estate development would be greatly hampered, since farmers and developers would be subject to increased unconstitutional permit requirements and fines concerning their treatment of almost any body of water, no matter how small.






H R 2: Agricultural Crop Subsidies (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2018/h/194)


Vote Date: May 17, 2018
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll194.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment that would have phased out agricultural crop subsidies by fiscal year 2030.

The House rejected McClintock’s amendment on May 17, 2018 by a vote of 34 to 380 (Roll Call 194). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because no warrant for the appropriation of crop subsidies is found in the Constitution, and subsidies disrupt the free market economy.






H R 3354: Fracking (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2017/h/483)


Vote Date: September 8, 2017
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll483.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3354), Representative Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit funds to process any application for a drilling permit that would authorize use of hydraulic fracturing or acid well stimulation treatment in the Pacific outer continental shelf.

The House rejected Carbajal’s amendment on September 8, 2017 by a vote of 177 to 230 (Roll Call 483). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government should not interfere with energy exploration. Regulation of various industries, such as energy, is not one of the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution. Allowing the United States to fully utilize its energy resources would make the country more self-sufficient and create, potentially, millions of jobs.






H R 3354: UN Human Rights Agencies (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2017/h/470)


Vote Date: September 7, 2017
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll470.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3354), Representative Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for making contributions to various United Nations human rights agencies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The House rejected Yoho’s amendment on September 7, 2017 by a vote of 199 to 212 (Roll Call 470). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because taxpayer money should not go to fund any agencies of the United Nations, especially those led by communist, Marxist, or radical Islamic regimes, which are some of the world’s biggest offenders of human rights.






H R 806: Ozone Standards (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr806)


Vote Date: July 18, 2017
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll391.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


The Ozone Standards Implementation Act (H.R. 806) would delay by eight years the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), issued on October 26, 2015. The EPA’s new NAAQS for ground-level ozone levels went from 75 parts per billion (PPB) to 70 PPB.

Upon its passage in the House, the bill’s main sponsor, Congressman Pete Olson (R-Texas), said in a statement, “My bill provides needed flexibility so that states and localities can adequately achieve new, lower standards with time for compliance. Health remains the first priority in setting standards and giving our local officials the tools they need make the Clean Air Act work.” The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to set criteria pollution standards for ground level ozone.

The House passed H.R. 806 on July 18, 2017 by a vote of 229 to 199 (Roll Call 391). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it provides temporary relief from having to immediately implement the new ozone reduction standards. Ideally, the EPA should be abolished and the Clean Air Act repealed, since both are unconstitutional infringements on state responsibilities.






H RES 397: NATO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres397)


Vote Date: June 27, 2017
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.






H R 10: Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr10)


Vote Date: June 8, 2017
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll299.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This bill (H.R. 10) would overhaul financial industry regulations and repeal many provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. Additionally, the bill would change the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into an executive-branch agency funded by annual appropriations.

The House passed H.R. 10 on June 8, 2017 by a vote of 233 to 186 (Roll Call 299). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because regulation of the financial industry is not a responsibility, nor one of the enumerated powers, of the federal government. While allegedly put in place to protect consumers from irresponsible Wall Street tycoons and prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, Dodd-Frank has, in reality, negatively affected small community banks and credit unions with its heavy regulatory burden. While this bill does not represent a complete exit of the federal government from the financial industry, it is a step in the right direction.






H J RES 69: Predator Control (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hjres69)


Vote Date: February 16, 2017
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll098.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This legislation (House Joint Resolution 69) would disapprove of and nullify a U.S. Department of Interior rule, "Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participating and Close Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska," which was released in final form on August 5, 2016. According to the bill's sponsor, Don Young (R-Alaska): "Not only does this [rule] undermine Alaska's authority to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government. I continue to fight to protect Alaska's sovereignty and management authority and will use every tool at my discretion to strike this rule."

The House passed H. J. Res. 69 on February 16, 2017 by a vote of 225 to 193 (Roll Call 98). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it reaffirms Alaska's sovereign power to manage its wildlife. Since the power of wildlife management was not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, it is reserved to Alaska and the other 49 states according to the 10th Amendment.






H J RES 38: Stream Protection Rule (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hjres38)


Vote Date: February 1, 2017
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll073.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This legislation (House Joint Resolution 38) would disapprove of and nullify the "Stream Protection Rule" issued by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in 2016. This new rule would "jeopardize thousands of coal and coal-related jobs, devastate coal producing communities, and put a majority of the country's coal reserves off limits," according to the bill's lead sponsor, Representative Bill Johnson (R-Ohio).

The House passed H. J. Res. 38 on February 1, 2017 by a vote of 228 to 194 (Roll Call 73). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because the federal government has no constitutional authority to issue environmental regulations, but also because environmental regulations such as the "Stream Protection Rule" destroy jobs and increase energy costs. Also, states already protect streamwater.






H R 26: Major Regulations (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr26)


Vote Date: January 5, 2017
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll023.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Under the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (H.R. 26), regulations would require congressional approval before any "major rule" issued by an executive branch agency could go into effect. "Major rules" would include any regulation that would have an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. The intent of the legislation is to rein in the executive branch from usurping legislative powers.

The House passed H.R. 26 on January 5, 2017 by a vote of 237 to 187 (Roll Call 23). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not simply because of the economic impact of the "major rules," but also because all legislative powers in the Constitution are vested in Congress, not the executive branch. Mandatory rules issued by the executive branch might not be called laws, but they have the same effect as laws, and what they are called does not change the reality.






H R 5538: Power Plant Emissions (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/431)


Vote Date: July 12, 2016
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll431.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill (H.R. 5538), Representative Scott Peters (D-Calif.), on behalf of Representative Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), introduced an amendment that would remove provisions in the bill that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of new and existing power plants.

The House rejected Peters’ amendment on July 12, 2016 by a vote of 182 to 244 (Roll Call 431). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government has no constitutional authority to be making environmental regulations. Such regulations on power plants will likely do nothing to actually help the environment, but will hurt consumers via higher prices and will almost certainly cause job losses in the energy sector. The EPA is an unconstitutional federal agency created by executive order, and Congress really ought to abolish it. Any action to limit the EPA’s power is a good thing.




H R 5293: Green-energy Mandates (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/322)


Vote Date: June 16, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll322.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment to bar the use of funds in the bill to carry out certain green-energy mandates that, McClintock said on the House floor, have forced the military “to squander billions of dollars.” Citing examples, McClintock noted: “These mandates have cost the Navy as much as $150 per gallon for jet fuel.... [They] forced the Air Force to pay $59 per gallon for 11,000 gallons of biofuel in 2012 — 10 times more than regular jet fuel cost.” Also, “At Naval Station Norfolk, the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar array, which will supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base’s electricity … [and] pay for itself in only 447 years. Too bad solar panels only last 25 years.”

The House passed McClintock’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 221 to 197 (Roll Call 322). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the so-called green-energy mandates squander military resources and undermine the purpose of having a military, which is to defend the United States and win our wars.






H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/330)


Vote Date: June 16, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll330.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”





H R 5471: Countering Terrorist Radicalization Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5471)


Vote Date: June 16, 2016
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll333.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This bill (H.R. 5471) would authorize the Homeland Security Department to train state and local law enforcement in methods for countering violent extremism and terrorism. This training would take place at fusion centers that have been established across the nation by the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Department of Justice for promoting information sharing between agencies such as the CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. military, and state- and local-level governments. It also would require the department to incorporate testimonials of former extremists and their friends and families into its efforts to combat terrorist recruitment and communications.

The House passed H.R. 5471 on June 16 , 2016 by a vote of 402 to 15 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing federal training to state and local law-enforcement programs is not only unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system.









More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000571

[Swordsmyth]

H R 4909: Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/210)



Vote Date: May 18, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll210.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”

[Swordsmyth]

H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres162)



Vote Date: March 23, 2015
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll131.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.

[Swordsmyth]

H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2014/h/328)


Vote Date: June 19, 2014
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Weapons to Syrian Rebels.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted."

The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels

[dannno]

She's also a big civil rights supporter and against the spy state.

But I will pan her on the health care discussion. She was saying how diet isn't a big enough part of health care and how they don't teach it enough in med schools. Joe asks her if the govt. should be involved in health care and she didn't give a good answer, but then went into a pretty good discussion about diet and health. He should have come back with - "Ok, well if all the politicians around you are so bad and so corrupt like you said, then why should we give them the power to control our health care?". Obviously they shouldn't be involved even if they all had good intentions, but at least it would have made her think about giving government power to all those crazy people and might make her lean more libertarian as she contemplates issues in the future.

[Swordsmyth]

H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4152)


Vote Date: April 1, 2014
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll149.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Aid.

This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.

[ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]

The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.

[dannno]

She votes how you would expect a Democrat to vote on most issues, but she is a million times better than all of them and can really do a lot to educate other Democrats who will listen to her.

[dannno]

The video in the OP was posted for a reason, it has a lot of important discussions that aren't happening enough and she is having them and she is a politician. She's the only "good" Democrat. As good as a Democrat can be... and better than many Republicans. At least as good as Kucinich, and Ron Paul was good friends with that dude and they worked together a lot.

[Swordsmyth]

She's also a big civil rights supporter and against the spy state.





H R 5471: Countering Terrorist Radicalization Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5471)


Vote Date: June 16, 2016
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll333.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This bill (H.R. 5471) would authorize the Homeland Security Department to train state and local law enforcement in methods for countering violent extremism and terrorism. This training would take place at fusion centers that have been established across the nation by the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Department of Justice for promoting information sharing between agencies such as the CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. military, and state- and local-level governments. It also would require the department to incorporate testimonials of former extremists and their friends and families into its efforts to combat terrorist recruitment and communications.

The House passed H.R. 5471 on June 16 , 2016 by a vote of 402 to 15 (Roll Call 333). We have assigned pluses to the nays because providing federal training to state and local law-enforcement programs is not only unconstitutional, but also further federalizes the police system.






H R 1731: National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1731)


Vote Date: April 23, 2015
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll173.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Cyberspace Intelligence Sharing.
The proposed National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act (NCPA) of 2015 (H.R. 1731) would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to expand the role of the Department of Homeland Security's National Cybersecurity and Communication Integration Center, designating it the principal federal entity to receive and disseminate information about cyberspace threats from and to private companies and other federal agencies.

Expressing opposition to both H.R. 1731 and H.R. 1560, another related cybersecurity intelligence bill, Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said, "As drafted, these bills violate the Fourth Amendment, override privacy laws, and give the government unwarranted access to the personal information of potentially millions of Americans."

The House passed H.R. 1731 on April 23, 2015 by a vote of 355 to 63 (Roll Call 173). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill would further empower the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security, erode the privacy protections enshrined in the Constitution, and gradually move the United States closer to becoming a police state.

[RJ Liberty]

She votes how you would expect a Democrat to vote on most issues, but she is a million times better than all of them and can really do a lot to educate other Democrats who will listen to her.

And she's not afraid of getting on CNN and calling out "Regime Change" as the BS it is (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/14/hawaii_rep_tulsi_gabbard_decades-long_regime_change_policy_is_cause_of_north_korean _nuclear_threat.html). Or call out Hillary Clinton and the DNC for corruption.

[Swordsmyth]

The video in the OP was posted for a reason, it has a lot of important discussions that aren't happening enough and she is having them and she is a politician. She's the only "good" Democrat. As good as a Democrat can be... and better than many Republicans. At least as good as Kucinich, and Ron Paul was good friends with that dude and they worked together a lot.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6679644#post6679644)

they may vote with us on specific issues once in awhile if we are lucky but they will always oppose reducing government.

Kucinich was better:

Name: Dennis Kucinich
Congress: Ohio, District: 10, Democrat
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 40%
Status: Former Member of the House

Score Breakdown:
38% (112th Congress: 2011-2012); 40% (111th Congress: 2009-2010); 46% (110th Congress: 2007-2008); 42% (109th Congress: 2005-2006); 44% (108th Congress: 2003-2004); 27% (107th Congress: 2001-2002); 42% (106th Congress: 1999-2000)


He was almost as good as a bad Republican.

[RJ Liberty]

That site rates Neocon Lindsey Graham at 60%. That's a joke.

[Swordsmyth]

That site rates Neocon Lindsey Graham at 60%. That's a joke.

Care to show any votes that you disagree with them on?

60% isn't good.

[RJ Liberty]

Care to show any votes that you disagree with them on?

As I said, I disagree with the basic premise on that site that all votes are weighted the same, and that non-votes that don't stop a bad bill from being passed aren't counted at all (that's an easy way to game the system). One can quantify someone's voting record in better ways. One rough way to measure "liberty" might be to calculate how much federal spending each member of Congress has voted for, in the span of one term. The less federal spending they voted for, the better. Fortunately, someone's already done the work calculating those totals (https://spendingtracker.org/).

You might be surprised to learn that 7 of the top 10 Representatives voting for huge amounts of spending are Republicans (https://spendingtracker.org/rankings?congress=115&chamber=house&status=enacted&page=all). Tulsi Gabbard, in contrast, ranks in the bottom 1/7th of the list, voting for only 10%, or less, of the spending of Darrell Issa (R), Elise Stefanik (R), Chris Smith (R), Leonard Lance (R), etc. She's voting for way, waaaayyyy less spending than most House Republicans.

[Peace Piper]

To those who are concentrating on the less impressive parts of Rep. Gabbard's record-

When exactly would you like to see these illegal wars ended? 2030? Maybe 2050? 2100? How about when the MIC has sucked up every last spare cent - wait, that's already happened.. Is the US going to bomb Iran? How many here would cheer? How many more countries is America meddling in besides the ones that we are told about?

If she did ONE THING ONLY WITH HER ENTIRE LIFE and that is to get Americans to DEMAND AN END TO THESE GD ILLEGAL WARS THAT ARE BLEEDING THE NATION DRY she would be one of the greatest politicians that ever lived.

Just how the hell have Americans sat back and watched 17 years of bombing and invading lands 8,000 miles away and allowed it to continue? I WANT AN ANSWER TO THIS. Trillions have been literally stolen from some of the most gullible people that have ever lived. This needs to STOP NOW.

Yet, in the next 24 HOURS the US will throw another ~$200 MILLION DOLLARS (http://costofwar.com) in to a dumpster and light it on fire. Probably even create even more enemies. (Job security)

Now where else do you hear the following:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HbBazqc2Kk


http://youtu.be/Pc-q7D35tpE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW72MAcQkGw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgayZxN8Dso


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

In every case above, I stand with Tulsi. That's more than I can say for any other politician in the District of Criminals.

[Krugminator2]

That site rates Neocon Lindsey Graham at 60%. That's a joke.

31% New American https://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=828&nameid=G000571

21% Freedomworks http://congress.freedomworks.org/legislators/tulsi-gabbard

18% Conservative Review https://pdfgenerator.conservativereview.com/pdf/412532.pdf#page=1

I would vote LP in that race but root for Graham over Gabbard. Graham is at least good on things like entitlements which is the most important issue. She is awful. She endorsed Bernie Sanders which is a non-starter. There are no good Bernie Sanders supporters. She wants to expand funding to government education. Gets heavily endorsemented by Marxist green groups. She is just really really bad and feel the need to point this out every time someone mentions her or Dennis Kucinich. There is no such thing as a liberty Communist. She doesn't want to bomb Syria. Good for her. Neither does John Bolton.

[William Tell]

As I said, I disagree with the basic premise on that site that all votes are weighted the same, and that non-votes that don't stop a bad bill from being passed aren't counted at all (that's an easy way to game the system). One can quantify someone's voting record in better ways. One rough way to measure "liberty" might be to calculate how much federal spending each member of Congress has voted for, in the span of one term. The less federal spending they voted for, the better. Fortunately, someone's already done the work calculating those totals (https://spendingtracker.org/).

You might be surprised to learn that 7 of the top 10 Representatives voting for huge amounts of spending are Republicans (https://spendingtracker.org/rankings?congress=115&chamber=house&status=enacted&page=all). Tulsi Gabbard, in contrast, ranks in the bottom 1/7th of the list, voting for only 10%, or less, of the spending of Darrell Issa (R), Elise Stefanik (R), Chris Smith (R), Leonard Lance (R), etc. She's voting for way, waaaayyyy less spending than most House Republicans.
That's nonsense and you should know it. Voting against how the Republican spending bills means she is against the way the Republicans want to spend the money, not that she is a fiscal conservative. She supports a Carbon Tax for example. She votes no for the opposite reasons as someone like Rand Paul.

That list shows Peter DeFazio and and John Lewis as being even bigger 'savers' than she is. That should show everyone how full of crap it is. You honestly believe those 2 would support more limited government than all the Republicans below them on the list?


LOL I looked again and that shows NANCY PELOSI as more fiscally Conservative than Jim Jordan, someone better tell Amash and Massie before they vote for the next speaker! :tears:

[dannno]

I'm not sure if you guys are aware, but Hawaii is a blue state. A Democrat is going to win that state. Do you want a version of Lindsey Graham on foreign policy who also votes for every socialist vision under the sun, is anti-civil liberties to boot?? Or do you want a Kucinich or Tulsi Gabbard there instead? That question SHOULD be really easy to answer.

Nobody has successfully argued that if every Democrat were replaced with someone like Tulsi, our country would be a million times better.

[shakey1]

She's not perfect.

BUT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING RIGHT NOW

ENDING THESE ILLEGAL WARS


She is the only Democrat who is outspoken against the wars and the war propaganda...


Fixing these issues alone would go a long way toward making this a better country.

[PierzStyx]

If anyone is thinking about it, a progressive/libertarian alliance is a pipedream. People keep trying to make it work, up to and including Rothbard and Ron Paul. And it always falls apart.

True enough. The two Progressive parties -the Democrats and the Republicans- will never do anything to jeopardize their power.

[dannno]

True enough. The two Progressive parties -the Democrats and the Republicans- will never do anything to jeopardize their power.

What does that have to do with Tulsi Gabbard? We are rooting for people outside that power structure for a reason. Hawaii is blue, that's not changing.. what can change is whether there is a neocon Democrat or a Democrat like Tulsi or Kucinich.

[Swordsmyth]

As I said, I disagree with the basic premise on that site that all votes are weighted the same, and that non-votes that don't stop a bad bill from being passed aren't counted at all (that's an easy way to game the system). One can quantify someone's voting record in better ways. One rough way to measure "liberty" might be to calculate how much federal spending each member of Congress has voted for, in the span of one term. The less federal spending they voted for, the better. Fortunately, someone's already done the work calculating those totals (https://spendingtracker.org/).

You might be surprised to learn that 7 of the top 10 Representatives voting for huge amounts of spending are Republicans (https://spendingtracker.org/rankings?congress=115&chamber=house&status=enacted&page=all). Tulsi Gabbard, in contrast, ranks in the bottom 1/7th of the list, voting for only 10%, or less, of the spending of Darrell Issa (R), Elise Stefanik (R), Chris Smith (R), Leonard Lance (R), etc. She's voting for way, waaaayyyy less spending than most House Republicans.
Non-votes happen for many reasons, sometimes because the legislator is out of town, and the weighted value of different votes depends on your priorities, you obviously are a cash register libertarian that places excessive weight on money issues.

No system can be perfect but theirs is better than most, Graham is bad but Gabbard is worse if you care about liberty issues, as I showed with my posts she isn't even very good on war and domestic spying.

[Swordsmyth]

To those who are concentrating on the less impressive parts of Rep. Gabbard's record-

When exactly would you like to see these illegal wars ended? 2030? Maybe 2050? 2100? How about when the MIC has sucked up every last spare cent - wait, that's already happened.. Is the US going to bomb Iran? How many here would cheer? How many more countries is America meddling in besides the ones that we are told about?

If she did ONE THING ONLY WITH HER ENTIRE LIFE and that is to get Americans to DEMAND AN END TO THESE GD ILLEGAL WARS THAT ARE BLEEDING THE NATION DRY she would be one of the greatest politicians that ever lived.

Just how the hell have Americans sat back and watched 17 years of bombing and invading lands 8,000 miles away and allowed it to continue? I WANT AN ANSWER TO THIS. Trillions have been literally stolen from some of the most gullible people that have ever lived. This needs to STOP NOW.

Yet, in the next 24 HOURS the US will throw another ~$200 MILLION DOLLARS (http://costofwar.com) in to a dumpster and light it on fire. Probably even create even more enemies. (Job security)

Now where else do you hear the following:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HbBazqc2Kk


http://youtu.be/Pc-q7D35tpE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW72MAcQkGw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgayZxN8Dso


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

In every case above, I stand with Tulsi. That's more than I can say for any other politician in the District of Criminals.

Did you see the votes I posted where she voted for war and domestic spying?
You really think she is better than Rand, Massie, Amash and Lee etc.?

[dannno]

?
You really think she is better than Rand, Massie, Amash and Lee etc.?

Nobody thinks that.

But it is better than she is running in Hawaii than Rand, Massie, Amash or Lee because none of them would get elected there.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not sure if you guys are aware, but Hawaii is a blue state. A Democrat is going to win that state. Do you want a version of Lindsey Graham on foreign policy who also votes for every socialist vision under the sun, is anti-civil liberties to boot?? Or do you want a Kucinich or Tulsi Gabbard there instead? That question SHOULD be really easy to answer.

Nobody has successfully argued that if every Democrat were replaced with someone like Tulsi, our country would be a million times better.
If all Democrats were like Kucinich we would be better off, for the sake of argument I will grant you Gabbard as well even though her record is worse, my point was that they would still be our enemies and that an alliance with them would be suicidal for the movement.

[Swordsmyth]

Nobody thinks that.

But it is better than she is running in Hawaii than Rand, Massie, Amash or Lee because none of them would get elected there.

He sounds like he thinks that:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Peace Piper http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6679692#post6679692)
That's more than I can say for any other politician in the District of Criminals.

[Swordsmyth]

Fixing these issues alone would go a long way toward making this a better country.

Unfortunately she still votes for wars.
See my posts of her votes in this thread.

[Swordsmyth]

True enough. The two Progressive parties -the Democrats and the Republicans- will never do anything to jeopardize their power.
Our differences with Republicans are fewer than those with the Democrats, an alliance with Republicans could end up with us taking over the party or it might end when there is no bigger enemy left with any significant power but we can't ally with Democrats on any longer term that vote by vote without destroying ourselves.

[enhanced_deficit]

Joe is an interesting guy. Just sampled interview, not bad. Good transition from a comedian.

Recently his prank call to Trump as a "senator" although crossed the line but have to admit was kinda funny.

[dannno]

Recently his prank call to Trump as a "senator" although crossed the line but have to admit was kinda funny.

I don't think that was Joe Rogan..

[Brian4Liberty]

Tulsi is great on some issues. On those issues, we can align with her.

[Brian4Liberty]

Joe is an interesting guy. Just sampled interview, not bad. Good transition from a comedian.

Recently his prank call to Trump as a "senator" although crossed the line but have to admit was kinda funny.


I don't think that was Joe Rogan..

Stuttering John.

[Anti Globalist]

I tell you what if Tulsi Gabbard was an alpha female and she ran her campaign the same way as Trump, her chances of getting elected president would be greater.

[Peace Piper]

Did you see the votes I posted where she voted for war and domestic spying? You really think she is better than Rand, Massie, Amash and Lee etc.?

I saw your posts. Have you seen my sig where it details Rand's lying about Crimea and his disgraceful stance on Iran?


Rand Paul lied about Crimea (http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/) & Iran (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/07/28/rand-paul-fraud-failure-liar/)
Rand- "US Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression"

Rand is better than many but that's not saying much. I wouldn't vote for Massie, Amash or Lee and have no interest in hearing anything further from any of them, thanks very much. Why aren't they demanding an end to these illegal wars like Tulsi?


...my point was that they would still be our enemies and that an alliance with them would be suicidal for the movement.

What "movement" are you talking about? The "movement" that watched Ron Paul make a deal with Romney and then lie to his supporters about it?

The "movement" that watched as Ron and his campaign team suppressed grass root involvement only to hire buffoons and fools like Jessie Benton? (I Cringe at the very memory of that twit)

The "movement" that watched as Rand endorsed the establishment favorite Romney BEFORE THE CONVENTION and then criticized those who had a problem with this blatant, outrageous sellout?

Apparently you fancy yourself as some kind of "Purist". Where the hell has that gotten you - or the "movement" that is all but dead? Purists have not succeeded in broadening the "movement". If anything, they have been a detriment.

I stand with Tulsi Gabbard and call for an IMMEDIATE END TO THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL WARS NOW. Those who don't deserve a thousand more years of war - and just may get it.

In case you haven't ever seen this, here's when Ron went south and took his "movement" for granted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4DdfSGiFs

[Swordsmyth]

I saw your posts. Have you seen my sig where it details Rand's lying about Crimea and his disgraceful stance on Iran?



Rand is better than many but that's not saying much. I wouldn't vote for Massie, Amash or Lee and have no interest in hearing anything further from any of them, thanks very much. Why aren't they demanding an end to these illegal wars like Tulsi?



What "movement" are you talking about? The "movement" that watched Ron Paul make a deal with Romney and then lie to his supporters about it?

The "movement" that watched as Ron and his campaign team suppressed grass root involvement only to hire buffoons and fools like Jessie Benton? (I Cringe at the very memory of that twit)

The "movement" that watched as Rand endorsed the establishment favorite Romney BEFORE THE CONVENTION and then criticized those who had a problem with this blatant, outrageous sellout?

Apparently you fancy yourself as some kind of "Purist". Where the hell has that gotten you - or the "movement" that is all but dead? Purists have not succeeded in broadening the "movement". If anything, they have been a detriment.

I stand with Tulsi Gabbard and call for an IMMEDIATE END TO THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL WARS NOW. Those who don't deserve a thousand more years of war - and just may get it.

In case you haven't ever seen this, here's when Ron went south and took his "movement" for granted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX4DdfSGiFs
If all you care about is war then you are of no more interest to me than Gabbard, you may be useful when I am opposing war but you are a detriment to liberty overall, Ron and Rand and the others may not be perfect but they are far more useful than Gabbard to my quest for liberty.

[Krugminator2]

Rand is better than many but that's not saying much. I wouldn't vote for Massie, Amash or Lee and have no interest in hearing anything further from any of them, thanks very much. Why aren't they demanding an end to these illegal wars like Tulsi?



Here.... I'll help you. There are like 5 million hits.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rand+paul+end+wars&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS757US757&oq=rand+paul+end+wars&aqs=chrome..69i57.2519j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

No shortage of Tweets either.
989141397075906562


I'll excuse you because you have no interest in liberty and don't pay attention to liberty politicians just like I don't spend anytime listening to anything Tulsi Gabbard says. It is fine that all you care about is war and handing out corporate welfare for green energy boondoggles. You shouldn't be shocked that other people care about other issues. This isn't JillSteinForums.com

[dannno]

Rand is better than many but that's not saying much. I wouldn't vote for Massie, Amash or Lee and have no interest in hearing anything further from any of them, thanks very much. Why aren't they demanding an end to these illegal wars like Tulsi?

All of those people are demanding an end to the illegal wars, even Mike Lee, although maybe to a lesser extent - he came together with Bernie Sanders over war powers you can google that.

I'll bet most of them have a much better voting record than Tulsi on wars as you have seen from some posts in this thread she is vocal but weak on the votes.. Rand/Massie/Amash are all extremely vocal on the subject as well, and they have the votes. Ridiculous to attack them on the subject.

[Krugminator2]

Why aren't they demanding an end to these illegal wars like Tulsi?




1040256553889218561

Where's Tulsi at? Railing against corporations at an Occupy rally ? Or is she trying to push through a grant for a green company that is promising a car that will run on solar power and poop?

[enhanced_deficit]

I don't think that was Joe Rogan..

Stuttering John.

I stand corrected, forgot it was stuttering John actually.

[charrob]

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Condemns Trump Administration's Protection of Al-Qaeda in Syria:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7A8VuRFGmQ



Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: End the Unconstitutional War in Yemen Now:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDNp4YE9BXQ

[Anti Globalist]

A Paul/Gabbard ticket would be amazing.

[Marenco]

A Paul/Gabbard ticket would be amazing.

That would be one hell of a ticket.

[Swordsmyth]

A Paul/Gabbard ticket would be amazing.


That would be one hell of a ticket.
It would be an open invitation for Rand's assassination.

[RJB]

I may disagree with her on a number of things, but I respect her integrity. I can disagree with someone, but respect them. A snake like Lindsey Graham simply can't be trusted, period.

[Swordsmyth]

I may disagree with her on a number of things, but I respect her integrity. I can disagree with someone, but respect them. A snake like Lindsey Graham simply can't be trusted, period.
I don't trust Graham or her.

[RJB]

I don't think a Paul/Gabbard ticket would work, but I would love to see a debate between Paul vs Gabbard on role of government. In a McCain vs Obama debate it was one type of corporatism mislabeled as capitalism vs a similar type of corporatism mislabeled as socialism. In 2016 I was hoping for Rand and Bernie going head to head in the general. Think of the honest debate. Instead we got the fricking soap opera.

[Origanalist]

It would be an open invitation for Rand's assassination.

So, we must not directly confront evil because someone might get killed.

[Origanalist]

A Paul/Gabbard ticket would be amazing.

I would actually vote again.

[Swordsmyth]

So, we must not directly confront evil because someone might get killed.

No, we must pick a conservative/libertarian running mate so that the deepstate doesn't get a Demoncrat president whose actual commitment to ending wars is questionable for the price of a bullet.

[Origanalist]

No, we must pick a conservative/libertarian running mate so that the deepstate doesn't get a Demoncrat president whose actual commitment to ending wars is questionable for the price of a bullet.

I'm going to agree with this for different reasons. I retract what I said because she could conceivably get elected after Rand served out his term and she's horrible on too many other issues. But why do you say her commitment to ending wars is questionable?

[dannno]

I'm going to agree with this for different reasons. I retract what I said because she could conceivably get elected after Rand served out his term and she's horrible on too many other issues. But why do you say her commitment to ending wars is questionable?

She is a vet, she probably ultimately votes for the spending to protect the troops or something. She did try to add an amendment to the last spending bill that nixed out a section that allowed us to go to war with Iran. It got like 70 or 80 votes.

Some people have posted some things that make it appear that there are some issues with her voting record on other issues like civil liberties as well, but her rhetoric on all these things including the wars are on point. Wouldn't be a bad idea if somebody asked her about those things to see what her rational was on those.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm going to agree with this for different reasons. I retract what I said because she could conceivably get elected after Rand served out his term and she's horrible on too many other issues. But why do you say her commitment to ending wars is questionable?



H RES 397: NATO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres397)


Vote Date: June 27, 2017
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.






H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/330)


Vote Date: June 16, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll330.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”







H R 4909: Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/210)


Vote Date: May 18, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll210.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”




H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres162)


Vote Date: March 23, 2015
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll131.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.




H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2014/h/328)


Vote Date: June 19, 2014
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Weapons to Syrian Rebels.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted."

The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels












H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4152)


Vote Date: April 1, 2014
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll149.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Aid.

This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.

[ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]

The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.

[Origanalist]

She is a vet, she probably ultimately votes for the spending to protect the troops or something. She did try to add an amendment to the last spending bill that nixed out a section that allowed us to go to war with Iran. It got like 70 or 80 votes.

Some people have posted some things that make it appear that there are some issues with her voting record on civil liberties, but her rhetoric on all these things are on point. Wouldn't be a bad idea if somebody asked her about those things to see what her rational was on those.

There are lots of progressives in the military, I would just like to know why he thinks her anti-war stance is phony. I've seen plenty that were, hers might be just another one, but I would like to see some evidence.

[Origanalist]

H RES 397: NATO (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres397)


Vote Date: June 27, 2017
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.






H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/330)


Vote Date: June 16, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll330.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”







H R 4909: Use of Military Force (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2016/h/210)


Vote Date: May 18, 2016
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll210.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”




H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres162)


Vote Date: March 23, 2015
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll131.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.




H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2014/h/328)


Vote Date: June 19, 2014
Vote: NAY (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll328.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Weapons to Syrian Rebels.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted."

The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels












H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4152)


Vote Date: April 1, 2014
Vote: AYE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll149.xml)
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/0.jpg
Bad Vote.


Ukraine Aid.

This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.

[ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]

The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.







Thanks. I'm in agreement.

[Peace Piper]

If all you care about is war then you are of no more interest to me than Gabbard, you may be useful when I am opposing war but you are a detriment to liberty overall, Ron and Rand and the others may not be perfect but they are far more useful than Gabbard to my quest for liberty.

I'm not the least bit concerned with your thinking on this or any other matter. Along with your silly little insignificant neg, you told me to "join the Democrats". Par for the course, from the likes of you. I won't be joining the Democrats or the Republicans today, tomorrow or any time in the future. The parties are nothing more than well dressed criminal gangs that should be outlawed and the gang leaders tried for conspiracy to ruin the nation and treason. Hope that clarifies things.

I've seen your "purity" act before pal. Look around- the US is going into the 18th year of war, and that doesn't count the illegal and immoral bombing of Kosovo.

I'll be helping Tulsi get her message out. I looked at Rand's pages, looks like he's busy campaigning for other republicans. Too busy to bother helping Tulsi, something I'd like to think Ron would have done before 2012. You can have the last word as I've much better things to do than argue with a fake purist.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not the least bit concerned with your thinking on this or any other matter. Along with your silly little insignificant neg, you told me to "join the Democrats". Par for the course, from the likes of you. I won't be joining the Democrats or the Republicans today, tomorrow or any time in the future. The parties are nothing more than well dressed criminal gangs that should be outlawed and the gang leaders tried for conspiracy to ruin the nation and treason. Hope that clarifies things.

I've seen your "purity" act before pal. Look around- the US is going into the 18th year of war, and that doesn't count the illegal and immoral bombing of Kosovo.

I'll be helping Tulsi get her message out. I looked at Rand's pages, looks like he's busy campaigning for other republicans. Too busy to bother helping Tulsi, something I'd like to think Ron would have done before 2012. You can have the last word as I've much better things to do than argue with a fake purist.
If you want to campaign for a CFR Demoncrat who votes to destroy most of your liberty and votes for the wars she speaks against then be my guest, I will continue to pursue real liberty and peace without you.

[Krugminator2]

I'll be helping Tulsi get her message out. I looked at Rand's pages, looks like he's busy campaigning for other republicans.

So just looked at Rand's page. He has a townhall with Freedomworks. You know the kind of group people here support. He has a post about getting out of NATO. Something Ron Paul people like. A post about Yemen and and an op-ed promoting Ron Paul's foreign policy. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/404996-situation-in-yemen-should-lead-us-to-return-to-a And it is worth noting those evil Republicans Rand is promoting are Andy Sanborn, one of Ron's earliest supporters in New Hampshire, and Eric Brakey, a Ron Paul guy running for Senate in Maine.

Yeah. so just looked at Tulsi's page. She does have foreign policy posts. She also has posts railing against corporations, looking for more regulations, and promoting green energy. Because that's what we need. More regulations and more subsidies. And someone who is anti-business. Oh yeah, she also has an anti-First Amendment screed about ending PAC money. Great. What a winner.

[Peace Piper]

I'll excuse you because you have no interest in liberty

That's ONE HUNDRED PERCENT false, but that isn't the first time you've assumed something that you've made up, is it. Probably makes you feel good though.


handing out corporate welfare for green energy boondoggles. You shouldn't be shocked that other people care about other issues. This isn't JillSteinForums.com

Congratulations, Einstein.

You've completely missed the entire point of hydrogen fuel cells.

H2 fuel cells mean COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. You understand those words, right?

COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.

At no time have I ever advocated for corporate welfare for the hydrogen industry. In fact, the opposite. Who thinks the existing Oil and Gas industries need handouts? A bunch of idiot "republicans" sitting on their asses in Washington, District of Criminals. If they didn't think oil and gas need handouts they would repeal them. But the Jackass-In-Chief wants to give handouts to COAL ffs. Try paying attention and ditch the labels. I know it's hard.

You're asleep and mired in your misconceptions. But you're far from alone. You're a proud member of a gang of 300+ million.

[Peace Piper]

If you want to campaign for a CFR Demoncrat who votes to destroy most of your liberty and votes for the wars she speaks against then be my guest, I will continue to pursue real liberty and peace without you.

If you think typing thousands and thousands of divisive posts on a somewhat obscure political internet forum is "pursuing real liberty and peace" you're delusional.

I'll continue to pursue an end to these illegal and immoral wars that have ruined the nation in any way possible.

Thank goodness for Tulsi Gabbard, she's picked up Ron Paul's old message. Too bad Rand is too busy trying to get more republicans into office.

[Swordsmyth]

If you think typing thousands and thousands of divisive posts on a somewhat obscure political internet forum is "pursuing real liberty and peace" you're delusional.
I do what I can on and offline.


I'll continue to pursue an end to these illegal and immoral wars that have ruined the nation in any way possible.
Helping Gabbard doesn't do that.


Thank goodness for Tulsi Gabbard, she's picked up Ron Paul's old message.
Thank goodness for hypocrites.:rolleyes:


Too bad Rand is too busy trying to get more republicans into office.
Rand has done more to actually end the wars than Gabbard ever will and if you think she won't work to get more Demoncrats into office or that they will end the wars you are truly dissociated from reality.

[Krugminator2]

H2 fuel cells mean COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. You understand those words, right?

COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.

At no time have I ever advocated for corporate welfare for the hydrogen industry.

Libertarians aren't for energy independence. It isn't a good goal anymore than iPhone independence or automoble independence or any other anti-trade idea. Secondly, I am quite certain you have advocated for government putting the thumbs on the scales of green energy. Gabbard certainly supports green welfare.




Thank goodness for Tulsi Gabbard, she's picked up Ron Paul's old message. Too bad Rand is too busy trying to get more republicans into office.


The people Rand has endorsed (Eric Brakey, Andy Sanborn, and Gary Johnson) are a helluva lot better on everything including foreign policy than Gabbard.

Was Ron Paul a Bernie Sanders supporter? Are these part of Ron's old message? http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Tulsi_Gabbard.htm

Supported the stimulus package
Supports the Export-Import Bank
Supports Obamacare
Wants to hike the minimum wage
Supports tax hikes on higher income earners
Supports wage discrimination laws
Has a 100% rating from a group that wants to increase senior entitlements, strongly opposes privatization
Voted to eliminate the work requirement for welfare recipients

I missed Ron's rants against PAC money.

[dannno]

If you think typing thousands and thousands of divisive posts on a somewhat obscure political internet forum is "pursuing real liberty and peace" you're delusional.

I'll continue to pursue an end to these illegal and immoral wars that have ruined the nation in any way possible.

Thank goodness for Tulsi Gabbard, she's picked up Ron Paul's old message. Too bad Rand is too busy trying to get more republicans into office.

To be fair, the Republicans are more anti-war than Democrats now.

Tulsi Gabbard is the only person on the left even saying anything, and she is voting incorrectly.

We have quite a few Republicans who are railing against the wars and also voting correctly.

Change my mind.

I have a friend who is a leftist and really into politics, I asked him a week or so ago who on the left was still championing the anti-war position. He said Cindy Sheehan.. Wow, what a dinosaur.. and he couldn't even name Tulsi Gabbard!! Why? Cause apparently I'm the only reason he even knows about her.

I still think it is beneficial for Tulsi Gabbard to be there and have a national stage to voice her views in a state that is going to be blue anyway.. If somebody in Hawaii wants to step up and run for her seat and voice her same views and actually vote that way too then they would be better, but at least somebody on the left is out there saying what needs to be said. But she is far from perfect. I don't thinks she is voting for the wars because she is a hypocrite, I think she is just trying to make sure the troops are taken care of because she cares about them. But it would be better if she set an example and voted against the wars.. and became less of a socialist.

[Champ]

She can be and maybe will be an ally to Rand in Congress down the road if we can start making a push to get out of these foreign quagmires. The same way Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney and a few others were sometimes allies with Ron.

Did they have massive disagreements on a whole host of issues, primarily economics? Of course, but they always seemed to come together on some of the important issues regarding foreign policy. In fact Kucinich still serves on the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity advisory board and has been apart of it since day 1.

There are next to zero politicians that are worthy of a citizens trust, especially at the cost of giving up personal liberty by force through investment into a "representative", but Gabbard is one of the better ones. Still, would never vote for her or 99.9% of the crap candidates we see all the time, but it is not unreasonable for Rand, Massie, or Amash, to align with her on foreign policy topics since she is already there and we are severely short on representatives and senators that advocate peace.

[Zippyjuan]

People on here used to praise Gabbard for her foreign policy positions.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504446-Trump-to-meet-with-Democratic-Rep-Tulsi-Gabbard

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510846-Rep-Tulsi-Gabbard-Condemns-New-U-S-Arms-Sale-to-Saudi-Arabia

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485639-Congresswoman-Tulsi-Gabbard-introduces-bill-to-end-illegal-war-on-Assad-and-CIA-ops

[dannno]

People on here used to praise Gabbard for her foreign policy positions.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504446-Trump-to-meet-with-Democratic-Rep-Tulsi-Gabbard

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510846-Rep-Tulsi-Gabbard-Condemns-New-U-S-Arms-Sale-to-Saudi-Arabia

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485639-Congresswoman-Tulsi-Gabbard-introduces-bill-to-end-illegal-war-on-Assad-and-CIA-ops

Here's another:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526319-Joe-Rogan-interviews-Tulsi-Gabbard

[dannno]

Joe had her on again:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR8UcnwLH24

[kcchiefs6465]

Supported the stimulus package
Supports the Export-Import Bank
Supports Obamacare
Wants to hike the minimum wage
Supports tax hikes on higher income earners
Supports wage discrimination laws
Has a 100% rating from a group that wants to increase senior entitlements, strongly opposes privatization
Voted to eliminate the work requirement for welfare recipients

I missed Ron's rants against PAC money.
Not to mention her support of an assault weapons ban and universal background checks.

Just awful.

[eleganz]

Tulsi is basically only with us on one issue, foreign policy, and great for her, she is the only liberal that actually sticks to the anti-war position, her voice is very well appreciated, I wish Her and Trump's relationship did not end the way it did because they essentially agree on the issue. She breaks with us on almost literally everything else though.

But I see libertarians fall head over heels for her, which is pretty odd because those that do, hate Trump.

In all honesty, Trump aligns with libertarians more than Tulsi does and if you cannot see that, yes, you have TDS.

[Swordsmyth]

Tulsi is basically only with us on one issue, foreign policy, and great for her, she is the only liberal that actually sticks to the anti-war position, her voice is very well appreciated, I wish Her and Trump's relationship did not end the way it did because they essentially agree on the issue. She breaks with us on almost literally everything else though.

But I see libertarians fall head over heels for her, which is pretty odd because those that do, hate Trump.

In all honesty, Trump aligns with libertarians more than Tulsi does and if you cannot see that, yes, you have TDS.

Unfortunately Tulsi doesn't vote the way she talks.

[Anti Globalist]

Gabbard might get my vote if she comes out against gun control, socialism, the Green New deal, etc. Until then, I stick to writing in Ron Paul once more.

[eleganz]

Gabbard might get my vote if she comes out against gun control, socialism, the Green New deal, etc. Until then, I stick to writing in Ron Paul once more.

lol, really? Shes a far left on those issues.