Tulsi Gabbard Has Just Dropped A Bomb On Hillary Run For President She Stepped Down A Vice-Chair DNC

[wlu29]

I would like bernie to win

Would be good for America good for the world

 

[Final Rehab]

Gabbard makes me miss the military. There's nothing like blowing a load down the throat of a female officer who out-ranks you to make you feel alive.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I hear that Hillary recent writings and support of Henry Kissinger left any doubts about Hillary stance against intervention out the window for Tulsi. She has been critical of the use of the Military over in Iraq and now Syria. She joins another high visibility former military member Jim Webb on the side of ending interventionist policies the US has taken.

Couple that with Robert Kagan endorsing Hillary the other day, and it's clear the kind of POTUS Clinton is going to be.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

If this is a bomb, I hate to think of the Dresden the endorsements in the other direction make of the Sanders campaign.

Like Robert Kagan?

 

[fbgn]

Voters don't really pay any attention to shit like this. The average voter votes for whoever they see on TV the most. No on cares that some one they never heard of supports someone else.

Hillary has more celebrity, more name recognition. It was obvious she'd be the democratic candidate from the start.

yea from my limited vantage point it seems that americans just vote for the most familiar face

 

[Krallang]

I have to applaud her on the fact that she stepped down from the democratic leadership role she was in after openly supporting a candidate.

Unlike Debbie Wasserman who's been driving around with a "HRC 2016" license plate for the past 4 years, worked on Hillary's campaign in 2008 and is somehow neutral. I never understood why Debbie hasn't been ousted yet from the leadership of the Democratic Party.

 

[MicroBrew]

Couple that with Robert Kagan endorsing Hillary the other day, and it's clear the kind of POTUS Clinton is going to be.

Pro NeoCon , Pro War, Pro MiddleEast intervensionism and anti Russia.

In other words, a Hillary presidency would see Dubya round 2.

 

[wandiswar]

You have such a refreshing viewpoint, too bad its harder to get in the military than college

MIC owns the soilders they used to fight for justice but no longer. Now for profit.

 

[Hallelujah]

She's got that 1000 yard stare down pat.

 

[supra57]

You go girl I hope Hillary crashes and burns the whitehouse doesnt need its silverware stolen again

 

[panamaican]

The schism is between the establishment and the activists. The schism is bernie, and warren, and gabbard, and Riech, and Hartman.

The schism is in the belief that real change can happen by playing within the rules of the beltway. "Stay home, just vote for the right people, and we can fix this country". Some of us actually believe, and did long before bernie sanders was running for president that we need a political revolution to change anything that really matters. Some are just now coming to this realization, but there is a awakening going on within the democratic party, of a populist, economic progressive left.

Sorry, don't see it. There are always people who disagree with the main party candidates but a schism requires more than a small minority of dissenters. And that doesn't exist right now. The Dem's are fully united in their battle againt the GOP, there is no infighting. The people who support Warren et. al. don't disagree with the larger Democratic platform. They disagree with the tweaks to the platform.

Again in contrast, the GOP had legitimate platform disagreements. You had the small government, less spending, anti-tax crowd whose platform contradicted some of the pro-military crowd because military spending impacted the budget. You had the pro-military crowd at odds with the less intervention crowd. You had the religious right at odds with anyone who didn't prioritize social issues over fiscal ones. You had those who refused to work with the opposition and those who believed that some cooperation was necessary. Those are broad differences that can't co-exist.

The Dem's are united in their desire for healthcare reform, pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, pro-social welfare, anti-government contraction, etc. One candidate might have a slightly different twist on how to get there but they agree on the end goals.

 

[panamaican]

I think there is a schism, because Hillary is not liked by even many Dems/Liberals. We saw this when Obama trounced here in 2008 in large part due to her pro War attitude.

People not liking Hillary isn't the same as there being a party schism. There are always candidates that people don't like. It doesn't mean they're going to break up the party over it.

 

[method115]

Voters don't really pay any attention to shit like this. The average voter votes for whoever they see on TV the most. No on cares that some one they never heard of supports someone else.

Hillary has more celebrity, more name recognition. It was obvious she'd be the democratic candidate from the start.

Wasn't this the case for Obama as well. She didn't win that time.

 

[UpaLoompa]

People not liking Hillary isn't the same as there being a party schism. There are always candidates that people don't like. It doesn't mean they're going to break up the party over it.

I largely agree with your posts, with the exception that foreign policy is an area where there is considerable divide.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I largely agree with your posts, with the exception that foreign policy is an area where there is considerable divide.

What specific differences would there be between what they do in terms of foreign policy?

 

[kpt018]

Ts and i have different definitions of the word bomb

Same here. It's an election year and we will hear about 1,000 more "bombs" from now until the election. Unfortunately lots of gullible folks eat it up.

 

[Seano]

Wasn't this the case for Obama as well. She didn't win that time.

I'm just saying that if you polled 100 Clinton supporters, 98 of them would have no idea who Tulsi Gabbard is.

 

[UpaLoompa]

What specific differences would there be between what they do in terms of foreign policy?

In terms of what they'll actually do? Obviously we can't know that since it is contingent on future events. We do know from voting records and stated positions that Hillary is more inclined toward intervention and military adventurism. Of course I'm also of the camp that views Kissinger as... problematic. The ramifications of intervention in Iraq, Libya, Egypt (surreptitious but there) are still quite apparent.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I'm just saying that if you polled 100 Clinton supporters, 98 of them would have no idea who Tulsi Gabbard is.

I think you're low balling that estimate.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Sorry, don't see it. There are always people who disagree with the main party candidates but a schism requires more than a small minority of dissenters. And that doesn't exist right now. The Dem's are fully united in their battle againt the GOP, there is no infighting. The people who support Warren et. al. don't disagree with the larger Democratic platform. They disagree with the tweaks to the platform.

Again in contrast, the GOP had legitimate platform disagreements. You had the small government, less spending, anti-tax crowd whose platform contradicted some of the pro-military crowd because military spending impacted the budget. You had the pro-military crowd at odds with the less intervention crowd. You had the religious right at odds with anyone who didn't prioritize social issues over fiscal ones. You had those who refused to work with the opposition and those who believed that some cooperation was necessary. Those are broad differences that can't co-exist.

The Dem's are united in their desire for healthcare reform, pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, pro-social welfare, anti-government contraction, etc. One candidate might have a slightly different twist on how to get there but they agree on the end goals.

40-44% support for Sanders within the party argues differently.

As to one candidate having a different way of getting there. That is the problem.......I think there is only one route to change anything that matters.

Props to Clinton though for defining the grounds of the debate over this. Instead of the conversation being about whether the last 40 years would lead credence to the idea that change from within the system, how it exists today is possible, we debate whether a new idea to the mainstream of politics is possible.