Tulsi

[Swordsmyth]

This deserves its own thread:


tolja.https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_evil.gifhttps://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_evil.gifhttps://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_evil.gif

1098280827048194048
https://twitter.com/TheView/status/1098280827048194048

[Kotin]

Out of all the dems she seems to have the most positives.. I really can’t think of any other one that I would even look at or consider researching more.. she has impressed me well before she ever announced but I would have to look at her other policy positions

[Swordsmyth]

Out of all the dems she seems to have the most positives.. I really can’t think of any other one that I would even look at or consider researching more.. she has impressed me well before she ever announced but I would have to look at her other policy positions
She is CFR and her voting record is terrible:


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%





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.

[oyarde]

Out of all the dems she seems to have the most positives.. I really can’t think of any other one that I would even look at or consider researching more.. she has impressed me well before she ever announced but I would have to look at her other policy positions

She would need to move her Freedom Index up about 30 percent to get to a D from an F ( to 60 percent ) . Every Republican in my home state sat at 60 to 78 percent at the end of 2017 when I last looked . She is in the same bottom percentile ( 10 to 30 percent ) as Pelosi . I would rate her no better than Obama or Clinton .

[kona]

According to Ron/Dan on LR, there is NO evidence that Assad has EVER used chemical weapons

[Kotin]

She would need to move her Freedom Index up about 30 percent to get to a D from an F ( to 60 percent ) . Every Republican in my home state sat at 60 to 78 percent at the end of 2017 when I last looked . She is in the same bottom percentile ( 10 to 30 percent ) as Pelosi . I would rate her no better than Obama or Clinton .

yeah that is usually the case, unfortunately.. when I think president, I think foreign policy first but I agree that is not enough for me to passionately support someone.. its always a case of getting enticed by non-interventionism but then getting disgusted with every other policy position these types hold.. quite sad.

I wish there was a larger vein of non-interventionism in the current GOP.. but then again, I dont really take most dem's NI credentials at face value cause they are often just being contrarians to repubs and support any democrat-started war under the sun..

[Swordsmyth]

She would need to move her Freedom Index up about 30 percent to get to a D from an F ( to 60 percent ) . Every Republican in my home state sat at 60 to 78 percent at the end of 2017 when I last looked . She is in the same bottom percentile ( 10 to 30 percent ) as Pelosi . I would rate her no better than Obama or Clinton .
Kucinich was a 40 I believe.

[oyarde]

According to Ron/Dan on LR, there is NO evidence that Assad has EVER used chemical weapons

I see no reason to think that he would .

[oyarde]

Kucinich was a 40 I believe.

Yes but he should get two demerits for suing the house cafeteria for cracking a tooth at lunch on a sandwich . 7 more demerits for being the deciding vote on obamacare .Still , greatest ever for a gun grabbing commie .

[goldenequity]

1099083826289143808
https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1099083826289143808


Just because you didn't get a pony doesn't mean that a puppy is the same as a lump of coal.

Let me know if you find a better alternative. (and NO Tulsi is NOT a better alternative, she is one of those pressuring him to delay the complete withdrawal from Syria)
https://imgfast.net/users/3715/65/05/91/smiles/2977618280.gif

[fcreature]

Tulsi is okay on one issue and abhorrent on all others.

... Sadly, not surprised to see people here supporting her.

[goldenequity]

Tulsi is okay on one issue and abhorrent on all others.

... Sadly, not surprised to see people here supporting her.
well don't put me there...
I agree w/ you...
it's like watching a beauty pageant between corpses.

[goldenequity]

1099316253926273026
https://twitter.com/Ozkok_/status/1099316253926273026

His 'statement' is JUST as twisted and revisionist as Adam Schiff's letter...
a complete distortion of what happened (on the ground)
and WHO actually FOUGHT/EXTERMINATED ISIS and the hired jihaddi mercs from around the globe...
and a glossing over of the atrocities committed, the lies, the smuggled arms and gas, the oil/drug rackets, the theft, the murders
and not leaving out the complete illegality of it, the arrogance and the occupation and defiance....
250 or 2,500 it doesn't MATTER...
and no, not just by Obama... but by CENTCOM and his 'generals' AND the Pentagon AND the CIA AND Israel AND the Saudis.
It's all lies and distortion.
The only 'joy' is when you see them eating each other and sabotaging and calling each other out.
Makes my day.

[goldenequity]

ha. The 'latest' update...

It's all a joke... Bolton's army just laughs at him.
As Commander-in-Chief he makes 'suggestions' then they do what they want..
then he embellishes or revises the outcomes for the cameras.


1099312897371619328
https://twitter.com/Ozkok_/status/1099312897371619328


It's always shooting from the hip.. and he constantly gets talked out of his 'decisions'
by whoever is in front of him at the moment stroking his ego.
It's all smoke and mirrors and he's just yer basic con artist/east coast real estate hustler.
Hail to the chief. derp.

[angelatc]

Out of all the dems she seems to have the most positives.. I really can’t think of any other one that I would even look at or consider researching more.. she has impressed me well before she ever announced but I would have to look at her other policy positions

She lost me as a fan when her initial reaction to Trump's announcement that we were pulling out of Syria was an "OMG! We can't do that!' tweet. Her voting record is straight up progressive, and I have no doubt she's just a trojan horse.

The anti-war movement vanished as soon as the Democrats started dropping bombs. That left a political bitterness in me that will never heal. The whole movement was a sham.

[angelatc]

1099083826289143808
https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1099083826289143808


https://imgfast.net/users/3715/65/05/91/smiles/2977618280.gif

He's right. Tulsi talks the talk, but she proudly and openly voted for Hillary knowing full well sHe was responsible for the Libya fiasco and maybe more importantly wanted to escalate the war in Syria.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290416-sanders-backer-tulsi-gabbard-voting-for-clinton

She's a progressive - there's nothing peaceful about them.

[oyarde]

I consider her one of the top dem charlatans out there . She has no voting record to match anything she has ever said .When I said I consider her no different than Obama I was being generous . Obama more trustworthy and a more honest communist is more likely .

[RonZeplin]

The same position as Trump except that he stole her thunder by bypassing congress for his Bump Stock Ban. :down: No better than Trump, piss poor.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PY81CB5vphw/maxresdefault.jpg

[shakey1]

She lost me as a fan when her initial reaction to Trump's announcement that we were pulling out of Syria was an "OMG! We can't do that!' tweet. Her voting record is straight up progressive, and I have no doubt she's just a trojan horse.

The anti-war movement vanished as soon as the Democrats started dropping bombs. That left a political bitterness in me that will never heal. The whole movement was a sham.

Looks to be just that.:questionsmerk:

[Peace Piper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bK9cCgp5Gg

Rand Paul schooled his daddy's followers that no candidate is perfect, then endorsed Romney before the convention.

Many here said this was perfectly fine, then attacked those who wouldn't sell out.

Tulsi Gabbard is THE ONLY CANDIDATE that is talking about ending the wars that have drained the treasury. How is that possible after 20 years of bombing and invading foreign lands? As soon as someone better talks about ending the insanity, Tulsi will be dropped, unlike when some here embraced Rand.

1090228887534080000

[Todd]

yeah that is usually the case, unfortunately.. when I think president, I think foreign policy first but I agree that is not enough for me to passionately support someone.. its always a case of getting enticed by non-interventionism but then getting disgusted with every other policy position these types hold.. quite sad.



Me too. The COFR thing is very disturbing, but she is very convincing when she is speaking about non-intervention.

[shakey1]

yeah that is usually the case, unfortunately.. when I think president, I think foreign policy first but I agree that is not enough for me to passionately support someone.. its always a case of getting enticed by non-interventionism but then getting disgusted with every other policy position these types hold.. quite sad.

I wish there was a larger vein of non-interventionism in the current GOP.. but then again, I dont really take most dem's NI credentials at face value cause they are often just being contrarians to repubs and support any democrat-started war under the sun..

Obama initially ran on ending the wars... didn't take long for that lie to be exposed.

[Anti Globalist]

She also supported that gun control measure that the House passed.

[acptulsa]

Are we expecting to find a great, or good, or decent, or even tolerable candidate in either major party? Or are we considering ways to troll the 2020 dog and pony show in hopes of weaning more mundanes from their blind faith that any of it makes a difference?

Assuming someone will beat Trump, shouldn't it be a fake antiwar Democrat? That way people can not only see just what socialists do to an economy, but just how many Democrat campaign promises you can combine with your $3.50 and still get kicked out of Starbucks with no coffee.

Besides, she's not unpleasant to look at--unlike that Creature from the Bronx Lagoon who I keep seeing these days.

[acptulsa]

Then there's the age-old Republican argument. 'I know this RINO won't actually do anything about abortion. But he talks a good game on the topic, and I figure nominating/electing him will send a message.'

Nobody wants to send an antiwar message?

[Philhelm]

Tulsi can eat a big bag of ding dongs.

[EBounding]

She still has the best rhetoric out of the dem candidates.

1100515949336297472

But I still don't know why anyone here would give their All Important Vote to her.

[enhanced_deficit]

This deserves its own thread:


https://twitter.com/TheView/status/1098280827048194048



While she may be better than many hardcore neocon Dems, some of her attacks on GOP-neocon wing's leadership were bit extremist and crossed the line. Will she be any better than MAGA/Jarvanak on foreign policy?


https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/pmcomposite-twin-up-insetivanka.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=750&h=500&crop=1
BBC Producer's Syria Bombshell: Douma "Gas Attack" Footage "Was Staged" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531556-BBC-Producer-s-Syria-Bombshell-Douma-quot-Gas-Attack-quot-Footage-quot-Was-Staged-quot&)






November 21, 2018, 1:54 PM

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says Trump is "Saudi Arabia's bitch" in tweet

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, a National Guard veteran who did two tours in the Middle East, said in a tweet that President Trump is "Saudi Arabia's bitch" for announcing the U.S. will stand with Saudi Arabia, regardless of any intelligence community assessment on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's involvement in the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
"Hey @real (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=68777)donaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not "America First,"" Gabbard tweeted (https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1065289231977738240). Mr. Trump has justified his stance on Saudi Arabia by saying that the country is a key partner in national security and a large buyer of U.S. weapons.
Last week, Gabbard also called for an end to any U.S. involvement in the Saudi intervention in the war in Yemen which has caused a humanitarian crisis. "It is long overdue that we end U.S. complicity in Saudi Arabia's atrocities," said Gabbard. "We must end all U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's genocidal war in Yemen now."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-tul...itch-in-tweet/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-tulsi-gabbard-says-trump-is-saudi-arabias-bitch-in-tweet/)

[ProBlue33]

Tucker Interview


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT8u2fpAf-0

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y1nylDLW-Y

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bK9cCgp5Gg

Rand Paul schooled his daddy's followers that no candidate is perfect, then endorsed Romney before the convention.

Many here said this was perfectly fine, then attacked those who wouldn't sell out.

Tulsi Gabbard is THE ONLY CANDIDATE that is talking about ending the wars that have drained the treasury. How is that possible after 20 years of bombing and invading foreign lands? As soon as someone better talks about ending the insanity, Tulsi will be dropped, unlike when some here embraced Rand.

1090228887534080000
Tulsi isn't just imperfect, she is horrible, she is even worse than Romney.

[Swordsmyth]

Me too. The COFR thing is very disturbing, but she is very convincing when she is speaking about non-intervention.
She is even more convincing when she votes for intervention and opposes Trump's baby steps towards non-intervention.

[Swordsmyth]

Then there's the age-old Republican argument. 'I know this RINO won't actually do anything about abortion. But he talks a good game on the topic, and I figure nominating/electing him will send a message.'

Nobody wants to send an antiwar message?
I'll send that message by voting for Trump if he is still talking anti-war and making baby steps towards ending the wars.

[enhanced_deficit]

I'll send that message by voting for Trump if he is still talking anti-war and making baby steps towards ending the wars.

Unfortunatly chances of MAGA relection are starting to look slim after Wall funding/2nd amendment/DACA/NK developments and recent Adelson cancer-Netanyahu corruption indictment news on same day this week. Adelson had funded both 2016 America-First MAGA campaign and Israeli Netanyaho. MAGA in law Kushner scandal story that also broke on same day also carries poltical risks (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531998-CNN-quot-Hear-Trump-question-his-authority-over-Kushner-clearance-quot&p=6759801&viewfull=1#post6759801).

[Swordsmyth]

Unfortunatly chances of MAGA relection are starting to look slim after Wall funding/2nd amendment/DACA/NK developments and recent Adelson cancer-Netanyahu corruption indictment news on same day this week. Adelson had funded both 2016 America-First MAGA campaign and Israeli Netanyaho. MAGA in law Kushner scandal story that also broke on same day also carries poltical risks (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531998-CNN-quot-Hear-Trump-question-his-authority-over-Kushner-clearance-quot&p=6759801&viewfull=1#post6759801).
:sleeping:

[acptulsa]

I'll send that message by voting for Trump if he is still talking anti-war and making baby steps towards ending the wars.

I don't give a flying fuck who you vote for.

And whether or not I do something to support a candidate in the Democratic primary is zero evidence concerning how I'll vote in the general.


:sleeping:

You came back here to catch up on your sleep?

Presumably you got some sleep during your vacation, and we all got along just fine not knowing when you were doing it.

[amartin315]

I think Tulsi is definitely the democrat you want to win the nomination on that side. I see why some people don't like her at all, but who else on the democrat side would you prefer? She's got an edge on every single on of them.

Then, if it comes down to Trump v Tulsi, Trump isn't that great either. I don't like either one, but it could be worse than Trump v Tulsi.

Unless we're talking about Rand or Massie primarying Trump, I think those are your two best choices for either nomination. Not saying they're great, just the best among poor choices

[kcchiefs6465]

Cosponsored H.R.8 - Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019