Tulsi Gabbard's powerful new antiwar campaign ad.

[the other mike]

This is one of the best videos the Tulsi Gabbard campaign has released to date. It is moving and effective and illustrates clearly why she is sorely needed in this unstable moment of America's history.

Neocons/Neolibs and MSM all sing from the same song sheet: War war war!!! Trump never gets positive media unless he's threatening war/carrying out military action. Today, Venezuela. Tomorrow, Iran? Cuba? Who will be next? No wonder North Korea won't give up their nukes.

Say NO to neocon/neolibs beating their war drums. As Commander-in-Chief, I’ll put American people first, END wasteful regime change wars, work to END new cold war/arms race, SERVE the people: healthcare, education, infrastructure & more.

 

[Pogo]

Dwight Eisenhower approves this message.

 

[Manonthestreet]

This is one of the best videos the Tulsi Gabbard campaign has released to date. It is moving and effective and illustrates clearly why she is sorely needed in this unstable moment of America's history.

Neocons/Neolibs and MSM all sing from the same song sheet: War war war!!! Trump never gets positive media unless he's threatening war/carrying out military action. Today, Venezuela. Tomorrow, Iran? Cuba? Who will be next? No wonder North Korea won't give up their nukes.

Say NO to neocon/neolibs beating their war drums. As Commander-in-Chief, I’ll put American people first, END wasteful regime change wars, work to END new cold war/arms race, SERVE the people: healthcare, education, infrastructure & more.

Trump has yet to wage a regime change war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Dwight Eisenhower approves this message.

Tulsi Gabbard Warns Against the Military Industrial Complex | Joe Rogan

 

[Pogo]

Dwight Eisenhower approves this message.

Tulsi Gabbard Warns Against the Military Industrial Complex | Joe Rogan

Did I call it or what?

I like her. Her ethics are in a good place. What a concept, putting "service above self" -- and what a mindfuck that we're currently doing the exact opposite.

And she's right about the "Congressional" part of the MIC being in the first draft and then taken out. I keep pointing that out.

At another point Eisenhower said, "God help this country when somebody sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do". And history since them bears him out.

Also she has her headphones on correctly. Joe Rogan has his on backwards.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[fncceo]

What war?

 

[DustyInfinity]

I saw the Joe Rogan interview. She seems reasonable and sane. I guess that is why the media is trying to eat her alive. I'm not sure what her stance is on anything other than foreign affairs, but if the only options are between a Republican and Gabbard, I think we would win either way. Why is she a Democrat? Her party is nuts, and she tends to make sense.

 

[Pogo]

I saw the Joe Rogan interview. She seems reasonable and sane. I guess that is why the media is trying to eat her alive. I'm not sure what her stance is on anything other than foreign affairs, but if the only options are between a Republican and Gabbard, I think we would win either way. Why is she a Democrat? Her party is nuts, and she tends to make sense.

What exactly do you think political parties .... DO?

 

[DustyInfinity]

In the parts of the Rogan Interview I watched, she not once referred to race or said that taking from the 1% would create Wonderland. I didn't know a Democrat was allowed to do that. She didn't even bash Israel. I'd definitely take her over a Romney or a McCain. She sounded reasonable like a Ben Carson.

 

[Darkwind]

Dwight Eisenhower approves this message.

Tulsi Gabbard Warns Against the Military Industrial Complex | Joe Rogan

Well, that was an interesting interview.

Service above self is a nice little catchphrase, but isn't really a tangible asset to bring to the office of President. She will, of a necessity, have to work with members of her party at the very least. Just ask Trump how difficult it is to do anything without the cooperation of the Republicans in power.

Too many people like to use the sound bite of "I'll not be beholden to my party" and that they'll fight the status quo. People have been using that line in the presidential races for decades.

She is right about most aspects of the military industrial complex, and truthful in that when these policy movers and shakers testify before congress, they have no labels before them detailing who pays their bills. Maybe if Congress, when they held these hearings, made that the very first question asked, things would become a bit more transparent. But wait, as we've seen, Congress is the actual problem.

She talks a good game, but what is her voting record? Does she vote for limited government, or does she follow party line politics?

 

[Pogo]

In the parts of the Rogan Interview I watched, she not once referred to race or said that taking from the 1% would create Wonderland. I didn't know a Democrat was allowed to do that. She didn't even bash Israel. I'd definitely take her over a Romney or a McCain. She sounded reasonable like a Ben Carson.

Well you wouldn't answer the question directly but from this post I'll infer you think political parties somehow impart some kind of personality trait. How naïve is that.

A political party is a tool, nothing more. Its function is to organize and consolidate political energy. Whatever persons work within it are still people, with individual free will. If that were not the case it would be impossible for politicians (or anyone else) to switch political parties, which they do, obviously for convenience, because they see the new one as more likely to get them to point B than the one they leave.

In other words it's no different that which vehicle you take for your trip to St. Louis. You can take a car, a plane or a train, but in each case..... you get to St. Louis, which is the point.

If you're running for office in Hawaìi, your vehicle of choice is probably Democratic. If you're running in Kansas it's probably Republican. Just as your trip to St.Louis is probably by plane if you happen to live in Ketchikan. Sure you CAN drive there but it's more work. The Democratic Party for example had a lock on the South for generations, which had nothing to do with personalities or ideologies. You either ran for office as a Democrat, or you lost.

Moreover, Tulsi Gabbard is a Congressional Representative, therefore her job is to represent the constituents that elected her --- not some political party. That's why these tribalist terms like "RINO" (or DINO) are such fatuous bullshit.

We've got to move away from, not toward, that sort of dichotomy-think. It's destructive. And it's exactly what Eliminationism wants.

 

[DustyInfinity]

In the parts of the Rogan Interview I watched, she not once referred to race or said that taking from the 1% would create Wonderland. I didn't know a Democrat was allowed to do that. She didn't even bash Israel. I'd definitely take her over a Romney or a McCain. She sounded reasonable like a Ben Carson.

Well you wouldn't answer the question directly but from this post I'll infer you think political parties somehow impart some kind of personality trait. How naïve is that.

A political party is a tool, nothing more. Its function is to organize and consolidate political energy. Whatever persons work within it are still people, with individual free will. If that were not the case it would be impossible for politicians (or anyone else) to switch political parties, which they do, obviously for convenience, because they see the new one as more likely to get them to point B than the one they leave.

In other words it's no different that which vehicle you take for your trip to St. Louis. You can take a car, a plane or a train, but in each case..... you get to St. Louis, which is the point.

If you're running for office in Hawaìi, your vehicle of choice is probably Democratic. If you're running in Kansas it's probably Republican. Just as your trip to St.Louis is probably by plane if you happen to live in Ketchikan. Sure you CAN drive there but it's more work. The Democratic Party for example had a lock on the South for generations, which had nothing to do with personalities or ideologies. You either ran for office as a Democrat, or you lost.

Moreover, Tulsi Gabbard is a Congressional Representative, therefore her job is to represent the constituents that elected her --- not some political party. That's why these tribalist terms like "RINO" (or DINO) are such fatuous bullshit.

We've got to move away from, not toward, that sort of dichotomy-think. It's destructive. And it's exactly what Eliminationism wants.

I'd love for the Representatives to be independent and true to their districts, but Democrats in particular vote along party lines. When you have the D after your name, it does represent a group that appears strikingly loyal to party lines. The parties might be just a tool, but being branded by them implies nearly lock step voting patterns.

 

[BlackFlag]

This is one of the best videos the Tulsi Gabbard campaign has released to date. It is moving and effective and illustrates clearly why she is sorely needed in this unstable moment of America's history.

Neocons/Neolibs and MSM all sing from the same song sheet: War war war!!! Trump never gets positive media unless he's threatening war/carrying out military action. Today, Venezuela. Tomorrow, Iran? Cuba? Who will be next? No wonder North Korea won't give up their nukes.

Say NO to neocon/neolibs beating their war drums. As Commander-in-Chief, I’ll put American people first, END wasteful regime change wars, work to END new cold war/arms race, SERVE the people: healthcare, education, infrastructure & more.

Trump has yet to wage a regime change war.

*Successfully

 

[Flash]

She is a Democrat. That pretty much makes her an idiot.

 

[Pogo]

In the parts of the Rogan Interview I watched, she not once referred to race or said that taking from the 1% would create Wonderland. I didn't know a Democrat was allowed to do that. She didn't even bash Israel. I'd definitely take her over a Romney or a McCain. She sounded reasonable like a Ben Carson.

Well you wouldn't answer the question directly but from this post I'll infer you think political parties somehow impart some kind of personality trait. How naïve is that.

A political party is a tool, nothing more. Its function is to organize and consolidate political energy. Whatever persons work within it are still people, with individual free will. If that were not the case it would be impossible for politicians (or anyone else) to switch political parties, which they do, obviously for convenience, because they see the new one as more likely to get them to point B than the one they leave.

In other words it's no different that which vehicle you take for your trip to St. Louis. You can take a car, a plane or a train, but in each case..... you get to St. Louis, which is the point.

If you're running for office in Hawaìi, your vehicle of choice is probably Democratic. If you're running in Kansas it's probably Republican. Just as your trip to St.Louis is probably by plane if you happen to live in Ketchikan. Sure you CAN drive there but it's more work. The Democratic Party for example had a lock on the South for generations, which had nothing to do with personalities or ideologies. You either ran for office as a Democrat, or you lost.

Moreover, Tulsi Gabbard is a Congressional Representative, therefore her job is to represent the constituents that elected her --- not some political party. That's why these tribalist terms like "RINO" (or DINO) are such fatuous bullshit.

We've got to move away from, not toward, that sort of dichotomy-think. It's destructive. And it's exactly what Eliminationism wants.

I'd love for the Representatives to be independent and true to their districts, but Democrats in particular vote along party lines. When you have the D after your name, it does represent a group that appears strikingly loyal to party lines. The parties might be just a tool, but being branded by them implies nearly lock step voting patterns.

I uh don't think so. Check your own post above where you're flummoxed about "how can she be a Democrat?". Can't have it both ways. It's either a lockstep world, or it isn't.

Might also want to explain how the Kennedys and the Thurmonds and the Wallaces can all be in the same party while bitterly opposed to each other.

Again, the bottom line here is trying to lump everybody into this mad Dichotomy Fallacy, as if All Is the Borg and individuals do not exist. Stop that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Joe Rogan Experience #1170 - Tulsi Gabbard

 

[P F Tinmore]

Gabbard on Saudi Arabia: 'Stop pretending that they're our allies'

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]