Thursday, April 11, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard on the Julian Assange Arrest

Except for economics, Tulsi is just great.


  1. Gabbard is not “just great” except for economics.

    Besides being anti-interventionist in foreign policy (which I admit is a big thing), Gabbard has little to make her worth supporting for any political office, let alone the presidency.
    While she seems to have a very calm and gentle demeanor, if you look at her website, it’s mostly pictures of her. Very little content, and no list of issues and her take on them (at least I couldn’t find it.) Seems a bit narcissistic to me.

    She is an environmental wacko, pushing a government-enforced “green energy economy.”

    She supports universal healthcare and Medicare for all and she supports making community college tuition-free.

    She wants a $15/hr minimum wage.

    She is anti-gun rights.

    She is pro-abortion, pro-LGBT (gotta have that pervert vote), and pro-same-sex marriage.

    That’s a quick list, but it covers enough that I don’t see the fact that she’s really good on foreign policy is enough to overcome her other faults.

    1. Most of those look like "economics" to me.

    2. By this definition, EVERYTHING is "economics", and we can conclude that she is horrible all around.

      Thank you.

  2. I think maybe Bobs point is, all the other scum bags are for all those same things you listed, and they are also for war war war. There are problems people who want to be free will have to face no matter who is president, but good grief, if the money that’s stolen from me is no longer being used to kill, maim and destroy people, I can deal with the other stuff.

    1. No, that is not his point, because if it was he would have said so.
      He claimed that except for economics she is "great."
      That means, everything but economics. That means including climate change, healthcare, gun rights etc etc.

  3. With Trump blowing it on immigration and now the Assange disaster, Tulsi is looking not too shabby for a second option.

  4. She's an anti-war candidate.
    Just like Barack Obama.

  5. I can understand that thinking, but much of the “other stuff” directly or indirectly results in killing, maiming and destroying people, too. Abortion is the most obvious, but universal healthcare/Medicare for all will, too, as healthcare is rationed. If guns are confiscated or someone is not able to purchase one when they need one, lives will be lost when people can’t defend themselves. A growing police state will result in more cops shooting people just because they can.

    As best as I can tell, she supports open borders, which will lead to more murders, rapes, and other crimes and violence from the illegals. I live in Phoenix, and this just happened here two days ago: Crime from illegals is constant.

    I’m all for preventing/ending war, a non-interventionist foreign policy, etc. But we can work to influence members of the military and hopefully some of them will come to their senses and refuse to fight, the military can shrivel up and die from attrition as people stop enlisting, etc.

    As horrible as ONE American death in Iraq or Pakistan or Afghanistan or wherever is (to say nothing of the people losing arms and legs, etc. and to say nothing of the foreign lives, but we are talking about American politics) I think the number of deaths of "service men" since 9/11 is under 5,000. How many babies died from abortion? How many elderly have died from inadequate (non-free market) health care? How many have been killed by illegals? How many people have died because they couldn't defend themselves because of gun restrictions? How many killed by trigger happy cops, etc? The numbers certainly outweigh the number of military personnel who have died since Bush the Dumber. And they stupidly volunteered; they were not forced to join.

    We can fight all of these issues from different angles, in different ways, at the same time – it’s not either/or. I just think that the good in her doesn’t outweigh the bad enough to support her.