Tulsi

[Swordsmyth]

This deserves its own thread:

tolja.

https://twitter.com/TheView/status/1098280827048194048

 

[Kotin]

Out of all the dems she seems to have the most positives.. I really can’t think of any other one that I would even look at or consider researching more.. she has impressed me well before she ever announced but I would have to look at her other policy positions

 

[Swordsmyth]

Out of all the dems she seems to have the most positives.. I really can’t think of any other one that I would even look at or consider researching more.. she has impressed me well before she ever announced but I would have to look at her other policy positions

She is CFR and her voting record is terrible:


https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard - 31%



[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]H RES 397: NATO[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote Date: June 27, 2017[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote: AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]

[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t, colspan: 4"]This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]





[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote Date: June 16, 2016[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote: NAY[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]

[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t, colspan: 4"]During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]






[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]H R 4909: Use of Military Force[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote Date: May 18, 2016[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote: NAY[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]

[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t, colspan: 4"]During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”


[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote Date: March 23, 2015[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote: AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]

[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t, colspan: 4"]Ukraine Military Aid.
House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.


[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote Date: June 19, 2014[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote: NAY[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]

[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t, colspan: 4"]Weapons to Syrian Rebels.
During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted."

The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]






[TABLE="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote Date: April 1, 2014[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]Vote: AYE[/TD]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t"]

[/TD]
[TD]Bad Vote.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_cms_table_paddinglef cms_table_t, colspan: 4"]Ukraine Aid.

This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.

[ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]

The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[oyarde]

Out of all the dems she seems to have the most positives.. I really can’t think of any other one that I would even look at or consider researching more.. she has impressed me well before she ever announced but I would have to look at her other policy positions

She would need to move her Freedom Index up about 30 percent to get to a D from an F ( to 60 percent ) . Every Republican in my home state sat at 60 to 78 percent at the end of 2017 when I last looked . She is in the same bottom percentile ( 10 to 30 percent ) as Pelosi . I would rate her no better than Obama or Clinton .

 

[kona]

According to Ron/Dan on LR, there is NO evidence that Assad has EVER used chemical weapons

 

[Kotin]

She would need to move her Freedom Index up about 30 percent to get to a D from an F ( to 60 percent ) . Every Republican in my home state sat at 60 to 78 percent at the end of 2017 when I last looked . She is in the same bottom percentile ( 10 to 30 percent ) as Pelosi . I would rate her no better than Obama or Clinton .

yeah that is usually the case, unfortunately.. when I think president, I think foreign policy first but I agree that is not enough for me to passionately support someone.. its always a case of getting enticed by non-interventionism but then getting disgusted with every other policy position these types hold.. quite sad.

I wish there was a larger vein of non-interventionism in the current GOP.. but then again, I dont really take most dem's NI credentials at face value cause they are often just being contrarians to repubs and support any democrat-started war under the sun..

 

[Swordsmyth]

She would need to move her Freedom Index up about 30 percent to get to a D from an F ( to 60 percent ) . Every Republican in my home state sat at 60 to 78 percent at the end of 2017 when I last looked . She is in the same bottom percentile ( 10 to 30 percent ) as Pelosi . I would rate her no better than Obama or Clinton .

Kucinich was a 40 I believe.

 

[oyarde]

According to Ron/Dan on LR, there is NO evidence that Assad has EVER used chemical weapons

I see no reason to think that he would .

 

[oyarde]

Kucinich was a 40 I believe.

Yes but he should get two demerits for suing the house cafeteria for cracking a tooth at lunch on a sandwich . 7 more demerits for being the deciding vote on obamacare .Still , greatest ever for a gun grabbing commie .

 

[goldenequity]

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1099083826289143808

Just because you didn't get a pony doesn't mean that a puppy is the same as a lump of coal.

Let me know if you find a better alternative. (and NO Tulsi is NOT a better alternative, she is one of those pressuring him to delay the complete withdrawal from Syria)

 

[fcreature]

Tulsi is okay on one issue and abhorrent on all others.

... Sadly, not surprised to see people here supporting her.

 

[goldenequity]

Tulsi is okay on one issue and abhorrent on all others.

... Sadly, not surprised to see people here supporting her.

well don't put me there...
I agree w/ you...
it's like watching a beauty pageant between corpses.

 

[goldenequity]

https://twitter.com/Ozkok_/status/1099316253926273026

His 'statement' is JUST as twisted and revisionist as Adam Schiff's letter...
a complete distortion of what happened (on the ground)
and WHO actually FOUGHT/EXTERMINATED ISIS and the hired jihaddi mercs from around the globe...
and a glossing over of the atrocities committed, the lies, the smuggled arms and gas, the oil/drug rackets, the theft, the murders
and not leaving out the complete illegality of it, the arrogance and the occupation and defiance....
250 or 2,500 it doesn't MATTER...
and no, not just by Obama... but by CENTCOM and his 'generals' AND the Pentagon AND the CIA AND Israel AND the Saudis.
It's all lies and distortion.
The only 'joy' is when you see them eating each other and sabotaging and calling each other out.
Makes my day.

 

[goldenequity]

ha. The 'latest' update...

It's all a joke... Bolton's army just laughs at him.
As Commander-in-Chief he makes 'suggestions' then they do what they want..
then he embellishes or revises the outcomes for the cameras.

https://twitter.com/Ozkok_/status/1099312897371619328


It's always shooting from the hip.. and he constantly gets talked out of his 'decisions'
by whoever is in front of him at the moment stroking his ego.
It's all smoke and mirrors and he's just yer basic con artist/east coast real estate hustler.
Hail to the chief. derp.

 

[angelatc]

Out of all the dems she seems to have the most positives.. I really can’t think of any other one that I would even look at or consider researching more.. she has impressed me well before she ever announced but I would have to look at her other policy positions

She lost me as a fan when her initial reaction to Trump's announcement that we were pulling out of Syria was an "OMG! We can't do that!' tweet. Her voting record is straight up progressive, and I have no doubt she's just a trojan horse.

The anti-war movement vanished as soon as the Democrats started dropping bombs. That left a political bitterness in me that will never heal. The whole movement was a sham.

 

[angelatc]

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1099083826289143808

He's right. Tulsi talks the talk, but she proudly and openly voted for Hillary knowing full well sHe was responsible for the Libya fiasco and maybe more importantly wanted to escalate the war in Syria.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...nders-backer-tulsi-gabbard-voting-for-clinton

She's a progressive - there's nothing peaceful about them.

 

[oyarde]

I consider her one of the top dem charlatans out there . She has no voting record to match anything she has ever said .When I said I consider her no different than Obama I was being generous . Obama more trustworthy and a more honest communist is more likely .

 

[RonZeplin]

Trump clone, just another Liberty hating Gun Grabbing stooge for the NWO globalists

The same position as Trump except that he stole her thunder by bypassing congress for his Bump Stock Ban. No better than Trump, piss poor.

 

[shakey1]

She lost me as a fan when her initial reaction to Trump's announcement that we were pulling out of Syria was an "OMG! We can't do that!' tweet. Her voting record is straight up progressive, and I have no doubt she's just a trojan horse.

The anti-war movement vanished as soon as the Democrats started dropping bombs. That left a political bitterness in me that will never heal. The whole movement was a sham.

Looks to be just that.

 

[Peace Piper]

Rand Paul schooled his daddy's followers that no candidate is perfect, then endorsed Romney before the convention.

Many here said this was perfectly fine, then attacked those who wouldn't sell out.

Tulsi Gabbard is THE ONLY CANDIDATE that is talking about ending the wars that have drained the treasury. How is that possible after 20 years of bombing and invading foreign lands? As soon as someone better talks about ending the insanity, Tulsi will be dropped, unlike when some here embraced Rand.