MONEY BOMB Tulsi Gabbard on 6/26/2019

[Rekonn]

Tulsi Gabbard is the strongest anti-war, anti military industrial complex candidate running for president, endorsed by Ron Paul on foreign policy. Please donate to her campaign on 6/26/2019, the day she'll be debating others in the Democratic primary. Suggested donation is $26.

https://www.tulsi2020.com/

Learned about money bomb from:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFA...px0A/community

Tulsi is also against the drug war, pro criminal justice reform, and pro free speech to the point she'll drop charges on Snowden and Assange.

[oyarde]

Not .

[oyarde]

Not anti war , not endorsed by Ron Paul . Not a legitimate candidate . As much as all the leftists on RPF wish , it changes nothing , she is no different than any other dem candidate with a freedom score to prove it .

[oyarde]

You should get your 26.00 to Oyarde , a real champion of freedom . I will spend it on american made precious metals and bourbon and it will do the world greater good .

[euphemia]

Anti war, unless you count the war on the unborn.

[Anti Globalist]

No. I don't think I will donate any money to Gabbard.

[tfurrh]

6/26 is the day after payday for me.

So I'll be broke.

[Origanalist]

6/26 is the day after payday for me.

So I'll be broke.

What a coincidence.

[Anti Federalist]

Ummmm...no.

[loveshiscountry]

We can call it the Authorization for Use of Military Force Money Bomb

[Swordsmyth]

Anti war, unless you count the war on the unborn.

Or the wars she votes for even though she speaks against them.

[unknown]

Or the wars she votes for even though she speaks against them.

Which ones did she vote for?

[PAF]

Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 30%

https://www.thenewamerican.com/index...nameid=G000571


Neocons scoring below 90% cannot get me into the voting booth, so no.

[kcchiefs6465]

I was considering it but felt the money would be put to better use on cigarettes and cheap beer. Maybe next one.

[Swordsmyth]

Which ones did she vote for?

Here are some examples:

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

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard - 31%

H RES 397: NATO
Vote Date: June 27, 2017	Vote: AYE		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
Vote Date: June 16, 2016	Vote: NAY		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
Vote Date: May 18, 2016	Vote: NAY		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. Vote Date: March 23, 2015 Vote: AYE 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 Vote Date: June 19, 2014 Vote: NAY 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
Vote Date: April 1, 2014	Vote: AYE		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.

[Swordsmyth]

Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 30%

https://www.thenewamerican.com/index...nameid=G000571


Neocons scoring below 90% cannot get me into the voting booth, so no.

Those in the mid 70's or above may be a net positive for liberty.

30% is a monster.

[PAF]

Those in the mid 70's or above may be a net positive for liberty.

30% is a monster.

Every representative should vote 100% to the government’s Law of the Land. While I personally do not deviate when it comes to Bill of Rights, there are portions of the Constitution that I obviously and absolutely do not agree with. Therefore my magic number is 90% in this ridiculous climate. Anything below 90% is a net loss. 70’s and 80’s you are simply pleading for bigger government than it already is. So, as I stated above, NO.

Sound complex? It isn’t really ;-)

[oyarde]

I was considering it but felt the money would be put to better use on cigarettes and cheap beer. Maybe next one.

This is why we are Great Americans .

[Swordsmyth]

Every representative should vote 100% to the government’s Law of the Land. While I personally do not deviate when it comes to Bill of Rights, there are portions of the Constitution that I obviously and absolutely do not agree with. Therefore my magic number is 90% in this ridiculous climate. Anything below 90% is a net loss. 70’s and 80’s you are simply pleading for bigger government than it already is. So, as I stated above, NO.

Sound complex? It isn’t really ;-)

You make it sound as if all good votes only hold the line when they can advance liberty.

I don't start to really like a Congressman until they are in the 80's but those in the mid 70's do some good and certainly slow down anything bad.

We can get more demanding as we get a higher average in Congress but that may take some time.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

LOL. The second assclown to recently resurrect his account after many years to solicit for Gabbard. The other one is here.


I didn't really look, but prolly the same guy.

[Krugminator2]

I could not think of a less worthy cause. This is the worst part of the original Ron Paul movement.

There are occasionally people who could use help financially on this forum or people who ran for Congress like Brett. Give them money.

"The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” would pay for health care by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, create a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment, tax unearned income, and also tax stock and bond transactions (not just the gains from those transactions).' https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ds-on-7-issues

I mistakenly said I might not vote for Trump. But statements like this why I will ultimately vote for him. I hate all of these Communists so much. It is cool she likes Snowden. Swell. What about the civil liberties of people who pay taxes.

[unknown]

Here are some examples:

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

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard - 31%

H RES 397: NATO
Vote Date: June 27, 2017	Vote: AYE		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
Vote Date: June 16, 2016	Vote: NAY		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
Vote Date: May 18, 2016	Vote: NAY		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. Vote Date: March 23, 2015 Vote: AYE 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 Vote Date: June 19, 2014 Vote: NAY 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
Vote Date: April 1, 2014	Vote: AYE		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.

The link references a ton of different votes.

I need a list of the worst ones so I can roast the ******s on reddit.

Do my work slave!

[r3volution 3.0]

She has a pretty good anti-war/pro-civil-liberties record:

--voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF (same as Amash and Massie)
--voted against aiding the Syrian rebels (same as Amash and Massie)
--voted against US involvement in Yemen (same as Massie - Amash didn't vote)
--voted to restrict NSA spying (same as Amash and Massie)
--voted to end indefinite detention (same as Amash and Massie)
--voted against the last 2 NDAAs (same as Amash and Massie)

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-...ard/22/defense

She also talks the talk.

In light of her economic policies, I certainly won't be supporting her, but I do hope she helps wake the long-sleeping anti-war left.

[PAF]

You make it sound as if all good votes only hold the line when they can advance liberty.

I don't start to really like a Congressman until they are in the 80's but those in the mid 70's do some good and certainly slow down anything bad.

We can get more demanding as we get a higher average in Congress but that may take some time.

Well, considering I no longer vote national elections, have at it. It is the centralized government, written by centralists, that I oppose. No matter how you slice it, both parties are part of the same government that has been abusing personal liberties and individualism since pen hit the page.

If I see a Rand, Justin, Tom... as I did with Ron, I wish them all the hope. If folks are intent on voting in order to feel USA USA “proud” I at least try to steer them in the right direction, hoping someday they will figure it all out.

Perhaps now you will give me a + REP for this well thought out, truthful and eloquent post ;-)

[RonZeplin]

Tulsi Gabbard is the strongest anti-war, anti military industrial complex candidate running for president, endorsed by Ron Paul on foreign policy. Please donate to her campaign on 6/26/2019, the day she'll be debating others in the Democratic primary. Suggested donation is $26.

https://www.tulsi2020.com/

Learned about money bomb from:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFA...px0A/community

Tulsi is also against the drug war, pro criminal justice reform, and pro free speech to the point she'll drop charges on Snowden and Assange.

+rep

Better than Trump, Biden, Weld, Beto & Bernie.

[Swordsmyth]

+rep

Better than Trump, Biden, Weld, Beto & Bernie.

LOL

She attacked Trump for the Syria pullout.

[r3volution 3.0]

LOL

She attacked Trump for the Syria pullout.

Source?

[Swordsmyth]

Source?

CFR Gabbard on Trump ending wars

[oyarde]

+rep

Better than Trump, Biden, Weld, Beto & Bernie.

Actually no different than biden , bernie or beto and never be as good as trump or probably even weld .

[oyarde]

She should be a non factor after two debates .