Tuesday, February 5, 2019

No, Tulsi Gabbard is Not Donald Trump

I am starting to see a few commenters in various posts downplay Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance by saying that Donald Trump said much of the same thing when he was on the campaign trail in 2016 running for president. Thus, suggesting that if she was ever elected she would change her positions.
This is absolutely absurd. It borders on delusional. No, it is delusional.

Gabbard has a serious, thought out, anti-war position. It is based on the fundamental principle that negotiations not war is the way to peace.

Listen to her:
Trump never said any such thing. During the campaign, he surrounded himself with war hawks.

Here are some of the articles I wrote during the campaign:
Do you not remember that at his Republican convention, Trump had Rudy Giuliani (the man Ron Paul challenged on war), Tom Cotton and Michael Flynn speak in prime time?

Those of you that didn't notice had simply fallen in love with Comb Over Man because he was, I don't know, sound on the transgender bathroom issue.

The man from the start was inconsistent. And, he never said he wanted to get out of NATO, he said he wanted to force other NATO members to pay more of the load.

And now he has even more war hawks around him that want to start even more wars in the name of regime change.

If you think, Gabbard would go down the same road as Trump, you have no idea where Trump started from and you have no idea how tough and independent Gabbard has already shown herself to be.

From The Guardian, January 2017:
Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region.

“Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.”
Has Trump ever even talked to Assad?

Gabbard is not your typical politician. It appears she is playing it straight. It seems very clear where she stands on issues and she appears to have the toughness to stand for what she believes.

Trump has been in office for two years and on most issues, I still have no idea what his stand will be in a week on anything other than that the neocons around him won't be going away.

So please stop the comments like this one:
Remember when Candidate Trump was saying the same thing in as many words? What happened?
Comments like this are dumber than supporting Trump in the first place.

There is no question if Gabbard beats the odds and gets elected president, the military-industrial-complex will arrange a private viewing for her of the Zagruder film but that is to be expected. I am sure she knows that. If she is as good and sound on foreign policy as I think she is, and as sharp as I think she is, she will accomplish more than anyone expects in the direction of peace and non-interventionism. She will know how to play the game much better than Trump.

I wouldn't expect miracles from Gabbard but as far as foreign policy I can't think of anyone better to have in the oval office at this time.



  1. As a veteran of the latest wars of the US empire, she at least has a first hand account of what really goes on in these wars.
    The biggest thing though, her father is a practicing Catholic, and if he follows the Catholic Church he probably taught her to be against wars of aggression.
    Her mother is a practicing Hindu, which Tulsi has taken as her religion. While I do not know what practice of Hinduism she follows, many sects of Hinduism denounce violence.
    So, she may actually have a conviction against war, which is a far cry from most, including The Great Orange, in government.
    If she has a conviction against war, then the war machine won’t have an easy time flipping her. In fact, I would think we would have a better chance at flipping her to prosperity (Liberty).
    Convictions are hard to defeat. My convictions as a Christian are why I am anti-war and anti-State. And no one can move me from this.

    1. Claiming that being Christian or Catholic means you are anti-war is pretty absurd. You may be because of it, but haven't you ever heard of the Crusades, or for that matter, any war in American history? These were wars fought by Christians. In the latter, Christian's vs Christians.

    2. I don’t think my reasoning with the Catholic Church was off base, as far as what I said about Tulsi’s father. And I didn’t say that all Catholics are anti war, and certainly all supposed Christians are not. But I do think I am correct in saying that if Tulsi has a religious conviction against war, she will be much harder to sway than a conviction less Trump.
      There was nothing “Christian” about the crusades, any more than there is anything “christian” about any war in American history.
      A dog can call itself a dove, but it’s not.
      Christ said “by their fruits you shall know them”.

    3. You make think they are not Christian but many Christians disagree. And I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school but was never taught to be against any war. The priests basically said there was an exception to the "thou shall not kill" commandment for soldiers.

    4. David T, the Crusades were fought because Muslims had invaded and killed many tens of thousands of Christians throughout the Middle East. But you are right, being Christian does not mean one should not defend himself.

    5. The United States is not an "Empire".

  2. Assuming that she has deep anti-war convictions, the real question is whether she can withstand the national-security-state's onslaught better than JFK did.

    (Does anyone know why, if she is so anti-war, she volunteered to do a tour of duty in Iraq and, after she returned, pursued officer status at a military academy? Have her views changed over time? She seems to be a more complex character than her recent statements suggest.)

    1. Maybe she was 19 and had her head in the clouds?

    2. This is exactly why Napster RW is really the delusional one thinking what you run on is what you are actually going to push.

      It wont be tolerated by the deep state and they will JFK her at the first opportunity.

  3. Certainly you can't trust politicians, but I'd rather cheer for a politician I cant trust who sounds solidly anti-war like Tulsi, than any of the others I can't trust.

  4. “by their fruits you shall know them”...yes, but not until after they have been in office for awhile, and then you won't be able to do anything about it. If she is elected, I suspect that Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war views will be quietly ignored and her Democrat Party views will be activated vigorously. We are always given a bad package deal: Capitalism with war or Socialism with peace. We end up getting Socialism with war since government is nothing more than violence decorated with rhetoric. A Ron Paul is a forbidden choice.

    The most important thing to know about Tulsi Gabbard is: why is she a Democrat? I think it is very important, though difficult, to ignore that she looks like an angel. Her charms could make her a very effective negotiator, but I fear Tulsi Gabbard would not be allowed any more freedom of anti-war action than is the Golden Gabber. War mongers run the world because they have the guns. Politicians serve at the pleasure of their gun-slingers.

  5. Remember when Candidate Trump was saying the same thing in as many words? What happened?

    Comments like this are dumber than supporting Trump in the first place

    I'm the dummy. If you go back to Candidate Trump, he was questioning our involvement in the Middle East (he still is) as well as our ridiculous antagonist relationship with Russia. President Trump now seems to surround himself with nothing but NeoCons and telling us that no one has been harder on Russia than him. So what happened? Was he playing us then or is he playing us Now? Or is that famous five dimensional chess?