Ron Paul: Sanity happened because Democrat entered Trump Tower

Her gun control policies and who she voted for is irrelevant if she is going to be Secretary of State.
 
Tulsi wasn't for Hillary in large part because of Hillary's foreign policy that upended Libya, Egypt and the ongoing situation in Syria. In essence, she's a true anti-war democrat and I have no problem w/ a person of that flavor becoming our lead in the state dept or in front of the UN - while it's still around.
 
Much better than Bolton. Actually this could be a win-win for Trump. She might could make a good SOS. How do Dems view her?
 
phill4paul said:
Much better than Bolton. Actually this could be a win-win for Trump. She might could make a good SOS. How do Dems view her?
Click to expand...
The DNC totally dissed her - I think she was "uninvited" to the convention because she wouldn't support Hillary, something like that.
 
Jamesiv1 said:
The DNC totally dissed her - I think she was "uninvited" to the convention because she wouldn't support Hillary, something like that.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, shit. Dissin' Hillary? The slut.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't think she would be very popular with her views.
 
FSP-Rebel said:
Tulsi wasn't for Hillary in large part because of Hillary's foreign policy that upended Libya, Egypt and the ongoing situation in Syria. In essence, she's a true anti-war democrat and I have no problem w/ a person of that flavor becoming our lead in the state dept or in front of the UN - while it's still around.
Click to expand...

Please explain how she can be anti-war when she voted for pro-war Hillary for president.
 
phill4paul said:
Oh, well, shit. Dissin' Hillary? The slut.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't think she would be very popular with her views.
Click to expand...
yeah.... Gabbard would have gone nowhere with the Dems unless she toes the company line.

I like her a lot - I hope Trump gives her a position.
 
Well, if this is true it will be the first contender I have heard yet from the President Elect's team for a good choice at State. Her irrational domestic policies will not matter excepting that her rise of profile may bring prominence to her disastrous domestic policies later and in a different office. Foreign policy she is light years ahead of any other trial balloon sent up yet. If real, the choice could signal both opposition to hyper partisanship, and a genuine down turn in American hyper adventurism.

There would also be some delicious schadenfreude to come out of such a thing, in BOTH flavors, red AND blue. Republican go-team-red partisans are liable to be stricken about it. Same for Democrat go-team-blue partisans. :D Round 2 of the salty tear apocalypse but this time both teams would be pretty fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
I'll take her over a Bolton or Ghouliani any day. She's young and will soon figure out the American people aren't going to be disarmed.
 
qh4dotcom said:
Please explain how she can be anti-war when she voted for pro-war Hillary for president.
Click to expand...

How can Rand be anti war when he voted for pro-war Trump? Rand and Tulsi are similar. They're party players to the degree needed. I fault them for it, but it hasn't ruled them out in my eyes.
 
jonhowe said:
How can Rand be anti war when he voted for pro-war Trump? Rand and Tulsi are similar. They're party players to the degree needed. I fault them for it, but it hasn't ruled them out in my eyes.
Click to expand...
I agree. Rand and Tulsi are cut from the same cloth. Very good, very smart and very focused.

Fight the battles you can win.
 
Jamesiv1 said:
I agree. Rand and Tulsi are cut from the same cloth. Very good, very smart and very focused.

Fight the battles you can win.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for more "but shes a democrat/statist pig who believes in XYZ!"

We need allies on the #1 presidential issue, war and peace. I'll vote for any major party candidate that I honestly believe will push for peace. I'd rather have two pro peace candidates running so people can actually vote based on other policies, too, though. Rand Paul v Tulsi Gabbard 2020 or 2024 would give me a lot less heartburn, and let the country actually debate domestic issues and economic policies.


Edit: I'm aware war and peace are not actually presidential powers. But in practice, they are.
 
Deep game. HuffPo June 2016.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-11-gun-bills-tulsi-gabbard-wont-supportwhile_us_57635ad1e4b0092652d744e9

In fact, Rep. Gabbard has declined to co-sponsor any common sense gun control legislation, including H.R.4269— the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 — which is co-sponsored by 125 of Gabbard’s fellow Democrats. Here are the other nine gun bills that Gabbard has NOT supported:

H.R.4748—Imported Assault Weapons Ban of 2016
H.R.3926 — Gun Violence Research Act
H.R.3411 — Fix Gun Checks Act of 2015
H.R.2380 — Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015
H.R.1745 — Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act
H.R.752 — Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
H.R.226 — Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act
H.R.225 — Firearm Safety Act of 2015
H.R.224 — To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public health.
If Tulsi Gabbard does not support common sense gun laws, she should let the residents of her district know that before they go to the polls this August. If she does support these gun laws, she needs to join her fellow Democrats (and some Republicans) and co-sponsor the above bills immediately.
Click to expand...

XNN
 
jonhowe said:
I'm waiting for more "but shes a democrat/statist pig who believes in XYZ!"

We need allies on the #1 presidential issue, war and peace. I'll vote for any major party candidate that I honestly believe will push for peace. I'd rather have two pro peace candidates running so people can actually vote based on other policies, too, though. Rand Paul v Tulsi Gabbard 2020 or 2024 would give me a lot less heartburn, and let the country actually debate domestic issues and economic policies.

Edit: I'm aware war and peace are not actually presidential powers. But in practice, they are.
Click to expand...

This is the main point. The fact that Trump even held a meeting with Gabbard is a very encouraging sign, as it's something a War Party owned President would never do. Picking her for SoS would shut everybody up, from the Left who say his major appointments aren't inclusive enough, to those of us who don't want another nation-building/regime-change neocon at the State Department.
 
Last edited:
Seriously... If Trump selects Gabbard as Secretary of State, this will be his best appointment, hands-down.

On foreign policy, Gabbard is great. And it has the added bonus of keeping her out of the House and keeping her the hell away from domestic policy!
 
trump doesn't have nearly the courage to make Gabbard SoS or even UN Ambassador. Even if he had any intent for peace. Mark my words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DamianTV
Farce - The Trump Political Show Trial - Ron Paul
Replies
1
Views
881
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
DamianTV
Would You Be Considered A Domestic Terrorist Under This New Bill? - Ron Paul Institute
Replies
14
Views
2K
Pauls' Revere
Pauls' Revere
E
Ron Paul: I will not vote for Trump, he can give two positions in one speech (flashback)
2 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
Sammy
Sammy
Swordsmyth
Russian official with ties to lawyer in Trump Tower meeting dies in helicopter crash
Replies
3
Views
521
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
No, Tulsi Gabbard is NOT This Election's Ron Paul
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top