Tulsi 2020 - what would it mean?

[kona]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the implications of Gabbard running and winning.

A progressive president would destroy this country. This wouldn't be the biggest nightmare of our lives if Ron is right and people will turn to libertarians to pick up the pieces and restore glory via freedom. But I am not as hopeful as Dr. Paul.

The thing is, Tulsi is not your normal progressive. While she believes in the government to guarantee everything for us and take care of all our needs, her career to date has shown us that she is the most anti-war politician on the left (perhaps the only one). She called out Obama years ago for funding/creating Al-Qaeda and ISIS. She defends Assad against the deep state regime-changers. Both of these actions have caused her party to denounce her as a right wing extremist and fake progressive.

I would take her over anyone on the left. Anti-war is anti-war. But it is merely a label until you are sworn in. Our history is overcrowded with anti-war candidates who become pro-war almost immediately after they become president.

This post is about two questions.

1. If Gabbard runs and wins, and stays true to her foreign policy and ends all the wars and ends interventionism, could the financial savings temporarily convince enough people in the country, for a few years at least, that progressivism actually works and we really can afford all the left is promising?

2. Tulsi scores big on the most important issue - war. She also supports weed. This is great. But is there anything else on her agenda that is not horrific?

A great lineup for 2020 would be Trump vs. Tulsi and a legit third-party independent. It's depressing, but any outcome that avoids a potential presidency of Kamala/Booker/Beto/Oprah/etc., I'll take. I am grateful to Trump, but there is no wall and he has not ended a single war. Republicans/libertarians/centrists/independents are pissed. A strong economy (albeit fake) used to be strong enough to win reelections. I think those days are over.

[Swordsmyth]

CFR: https://www.cfr.org/membership-roster-g-k


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.

[kona]

That record looks disgusting, and I look pretty stupid.

She voted to support the rebels, but also visited and defended Assad?

Were her complaints about Obama funding wahabiism fake news? What benefit could she have gotten from that if she wasn't sincere?

[Origanalist]

That record looks disgusting, and I look pretty stupid.

She voted to support the rebels, but also visited and defended Assad?

Were her complaints about Obama funding wahabiism fake news? What benefit could she have gotten from that if she wasn't sincere?

Can't that question be asked about virtually every politician?

[specsaregood]

That record looks disgusting, and I look pretty stupid.

She voted to support the rebels, but also visited and defended Assad?

Were her complaints about Obama funding wahabiism fake news? What benefit could she have gotten from that if she wasn't sincere?

And now you know the truth of the matter, she is ALL TALK when it comes to being anti-war.

[RJB]

And now you know the truth of the matter, she is ALL TALK when it comes to being anti-war.

I am embarrassed to say that I fell for it. She put on the appearance that she was quite sincere.

[oyarde]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the implications of Gabbard running and winning.

A progressive president would destroy this country. This wouldn't be the biggest nightmare of our lives if Ron is right and people will turn to libertarians to pick up the pieces and restore glory via freedom. But I am not as hopeful as Dr. Paul.

The thing is, Tulsi is not your normal progressive. While she believes in the government to guarantee everything for us and take care of all our needs, her career to date has shown us that she is the most anti-war politician on the left (perhaps the only one). She called out Obama years ago for funding/creating Al-Qaeda and ISIS. She defends Assad against the deep state regime-changers. Both of these actions have caused her party to denounce her as a right wing extremist and fake progressive.

I would take her over anyone on the left. Anti-war is anti-war. But it is merely a label until you are sworn in. Our history is overcrowded with anti-war candidates who become pro-war almost immediately after they become president.

This post is about two questions.

1. If Gabbard runs and wins, and stays true to her foreign policy and ends all the wars and ends interventionism, could the financial savings temporarily convince enough people in the country, for a few years at least, that progressivism actually works and we really can afford all the left is promising?

2. Tulsi scores big on the most important issue - war. She also supports weed. This is great. But is there anything else on her agenda that is not horrific?

A great lineup for 2020 would be Trump vs. Tulsi and a legit third-party independent. It's depressing, but any outcome that avoids a potential presidency of Kamala/Booker/Beto/Oprah/etc., I'll take. I am grateful to Trump, but there is no wall and he has not ended a single war. Republicans/libertarians/centrists/independents are pissed. A strong economy (albeit fake) used to be strong enough to win reelections. I think those days are over.

I give you my personal guarantee she would continue on with Obama foreign policy .

[acptulsa]

I am embarrassed to say that I fell for it. She put on the appearance that she was quite sincere.

The only candidates or potential candidates who will change anything are the ones you never, ever hear about in the MSM. Notice I did not say "hear only bad things about". They know how to manipulate Republicans. What was the lesson we learned in 2008 and 2012? Your only friends are Those Who Must Not Be Named.

Gabbard, like Trump, gets press. Therefore she, like Trump, is someone they trust to promise whatever, but rule like a tool.

[oyarde]

If you are going to vote , vote in primaries and in general elections use the Oyarde rule of thumb . In local city and county elections vote for whoever you are certain will steal the least . In national elections never vote for a dem.

[Anti Globalist]

She won't be the nominee in 2020 and probably won't even be president at all. Although it would be nice to see the first female president be someone thats not hideous.

[eleganz]

Medicare for all (alone) is 4x more expensive than our entire military budget, annual to annual.

[Superfluous Man]

A progressive president would destroy this country

Sure. But almost every president for well over a century now has been a progressive.

One thing about Gabbard is that she's a woman, which I think we have enough evidence now to conclude is a disadvantage when running for US President. As long as the GOP nominated a man to run against her (one who I assume would also be a progressive), it would be very hard for her to win.

[Danke]

Medicare for all (alone) is 4x more expensive than our entire military budget, annual to annual.

I wonder how many are on either Medicare or state administered health programs already.

[oyarde]

I wonder how many are on either Medicare or state administered health programs already.

I dunno , but I read somewherre where 6 in 10 babies births are pd like that so too many because I am pretty sure they are ( the mothers ) under 65 years of age .

[Danke]

I dunno , but I read somewherre where 6 in 10 babies births are pd like that so too many because I am pretty sure they are ( the mothers ) under 65 years of age .

oops, I meant Medicaid.

[oyarde]

oops, I meant Medicaid.

I knew what you meant . America is chock full of deadbeats and it costs too much .