Thanks for the link - I may have to look into her candidacy more deeply.
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Considering that nothing has changed in the big scheme of things – the same corrupt system is in place – that installed the current White House resident and the same people support him still, why would anyone looking at reality think that anything will be different the second time around? And what about him going back into the corrupt Democratic Party again. Did one forget that he was thrown under the bus in 2016 and then cowardly endorsed war criminal Hillary? That’s someone to be excited about and supporting again? Insanity. Why would mr fake socialist join the Democratic Party again? To have a repeat of 2016? Insanity.
Tulsi Gabbard is a piece of work:
Tulsi Gabbard once touted working for anti-gay group that backed conversion therapy
A little homework on a candidate can go a long way.
The Tulsi quote you cite seems reasonable enough. I guess my comment would be, if we’re asked to look past Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton’s formerly being Republicans, we owe Tulsi the same understanding about changing her views over time.
Of course, like you, I’m not expecting some d-party candidate to come out as a peacenik.
I suggest that you review actual positions and facts. Propaganda is usually half-truths and misdirection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders
Please review and post which facts you find incorrect and/or imperialistic. Fair enough?
The devil is often in the details and I WANT to know your thoughts. Honest disagreement is worth time and investigation. Unicorn hunts aren’t productive.
It would be nice if progressives accepted that Jesus Christ is not about to run as the Democrat nominee.
Bernie is as liberal as any Democrat in history on social and economic issues. He is, after all, an avowed socialist.
Please don’t start throwing stones at him for imperfect foreign policy positions.
He does still have to win in the general. And there is no better way for the right to attack him than to say he sympathizes with communist brethren in Venezuela.
To help with your homework:
Regarding her views on gays, Tulsi announced her support for marriage equality in 2011 and, in 2012, she apologized for earlier homophobic statements. She issued a second apology very recently. The Human Rights Campaign endorsed her in 2016 and gave her a 100 rating.
All you centrist dems running for the top job, I’ve got a great idea for all of you. Stop what you’re doing and get behind Bernie. He has the experience and unlike you, he’s incorruptible.
The right is going to attack him on the basis of ‘socialism’ no matter what stance he takes, so what’s your point?
That Bernie should try to be all things to all audiences like most Democrats?
Sanders obligated himself to supporting the “winner” in the primary. He keeps his word… and you find that “cowardly”. You might not be the big thinker you portray.
Are you aware that the last election was Hillary vs. tRump? Unlike the clinton-coup last time, eight of the nine first primaries are open and the DNC would lose additional support if caught cheating again.
Yes - her anti-gay quotes are what @helen and I were referring to about her attitudes in her college days. Those seem to have genuinely changed. Quotes from this decade worry me much more - and I definitely need to study her foreign policy pronouncements much more. For example, I’d like to read a transcript of her talk at the “Christians United for Israel” conference in 2015.
As I’ve said before, good to see Sanders running for the sake of keeping the conversation pulled to the left. That, and he is the only candidate running under the progressive label that does not have a history of converting to progressive causes. He’s been there all the way, at least on domestic issues. Foreign policy is still ?
Also as I’ve said, before, though, a Sander’s run is doomed from the start, anyway. Sanders will never get the support of the neoliberal party establishment which is still the core of the Democratic party. The party, as a whole, views as a threat to their corporate money train. Sanders caught them by surprise in 2016, but they’re ready for him, now. No way will they let him be their candidate in 2020.
At this point, though, I would caution all fellow progressives about jumping on anyone’s bandwagon. It’s way early and these candidates are, after all, running under the same old corrupt party flag. There’s been no “revolution” as Sanders claims. A few new progressive voices in the party do not even qualify as reform. More than that, this campaign has all the ingredients needed for the party to cook up another Obama-style Hope and Change swindle.
Fool us twice…
While I agree with everything in your comment, I’ll give Bernie this much credit:
He did more than just pull the conversation leftward. To the extent that MFA, a living wage, addressing climate chaos, free college tuition, and wealth inequality are now backed by actual mass movements, Bernie hand a big hand in inspiring them.
Sure, he’s a sheepdog. That sucks. Then again, look around. The whole d-party line up sucks.
Imperfect? Have you seen what the US has done in the Mid East the last 15 years? When can we start talking about that crime???
I agree. In no way am I belittling what he’s done to put all these issues up front for all to see. For that, we all owe him. He has changed the conversation and in a big way. Nor am I throwing stones at him on foreign policy, but there has been some ambiguity, there, and lack of focus. Some clarification would be positive.
What I would like to see him do on foreign policy is to be as adamant and insistent on change as he has been on domestic issues. That would contribute greatly to the conversation in this campaign.
I think my post was clear.
I am not saying that Bernie should be all things to all people.
I was saying quite the opposite.
I was saying that people who call themselves progressive should not expect Bernie to agree with them on all issues.
There is far too much letting the perfect be the enemy of the good from commentators on this site.
Moreover, I suspect his Venezuela position serves to insulate him, ever so little, from the obvious right-wing attack you noted.
This story is about Bernie, so I hesitate to say too much here, but I think you are short changing Tulsi on this topic. No one has been so unequivocal about eliminating foreign meddling by the US. Everyone else has to prepend any comments on restraint with criticizing Maduro. Tulsi simply says we don’t people to interfere in our elections, we shouldn’t interfere in other country’s elections. She has particular views on using drone strikes on actual terrorists that don’t sound progressive, but if that is all she did and backed the hell out of all our wars, I hazard to guess that we wouldn’t be seeing the same perceived need for drone strikes in the first place.
I have no issue with her current views on LGBT issues and I have yet to see someone really substantiate the claim that she has ties to right wing Indian politics in any way that influences what she would do as president.
Bernie is still my first choice, but I’d take Tulsi over just about anybody else in the Democratic field.
Bernie’s multiple handicaps on foreign policy:
The US military is a jobs program – there are lots of voters who want to rein in the military budget, except if it means shutting down a facility in their district.
Israel exerts major pressure on the US in the MidEast – more, apparently, than Bernie can stand up to.
Advocating as a peacenik would put Bernie at extreme odds with the d-party – if there’s an orthodoxy that defines the linkage between the duopoly, it’s war and supporting our troops.
You notice I didn’t mention actual policy. Is Bernie in favor of endless US intervention and war? Regime change? Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions? Blind support for Israel? That’s where you and I really agree: “Some clarification would be positive.”
Why do Liberals always cower to the Right?? Did Trump placate the Left…Hell no.