'Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party': its about time, always liked her but she can go off too, so we need to be cautious & see how this unfolds but GREAT, glad she quit plantation
'Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party': its about time, always liked her but she can go off too, so we need to be cautious & see how this unfolds but GREAT, glad she quit plantation
Let us see what she brings & helps is all but I like her, I think smart, passionate & loves America, she is IMO a decent liberal democrat & lover of flag and military; sensible, but we be weary UNTIL
As I previously promised my readers, I did ask her (https://tulsi.substack.com/p/why-im-leaving-the-democratic-party/comment/9657480) about her WEF and CFR associations while applauding her for the good work she has done and this significant step toward liberation from partisan politics. We shall see if she responds or takes me up on my offer to participate in an interview.
She’s no conservative, but even she can see how bad the Dims have gotten.
IMO the national Democratic Party should be investigated for violating the RICO statutes. They are a clear and present danger to our constitutional republic.
Interesting. I'm glad she feels she doesn't fit in there. For me, I wouldn't be enthusiatic about her unless she took strong stands against covid tyranny and acknowledged Biden may not have been legitimately elected. Then maybe.
When Tulsi condemns the deadly clot shots and dares to call out the CV HOAX, and it’s perpetrators - Fauci, Gates, WEF, CDC, WHO, FDA, NIH, NIAID, the MSM, and her good buddy and mentor Klaus Schwab, then I might pay her some mind.
I’m with Tulsi in leaving the Democratic Party. Too much BigTech n Bloomberg influence. The way Bernie was treated in 2016 was atrocious. In 2020 with candidates like Tulsi and Andrew the party decided on Joe. There agenda is no longer mine as they have rocketed leftward and elite tail is wagging the dog.
My 1st political axiom is "Anyone who has no problem with women killing innocent babies in the womb cannot be ultimately trusted since their moral compass is severely damaged." They are the ultimate "ends justifies the means" people. If the most innocent humans are not safe, then they can rationalize any other horror. Beware of cheerleading politicians who don't work to end abortion.
Tulsi allows herself to be labeled as “anti-war”, but that is untrue! Actually, Tulsi says on her web site that she's a "dove when it comes to Regime Change Wars but a warhawk when it comes to terrorists".
She says she wouldn't end our Drone Program, and favors "limited drone strikes on terrorists." Whatever that might be! "Limited drone strikes" is a purposely ambiguous statement,
But who gets to determine which individuals are "terrorists" in the first place? What kind of evidence would be used to determine if an individual meets the definition of "terrorist"?
Here in the United States, environmental activists, trying to shut down pipelines, or expose cruel factory farming practices are labeled "environmental terrorists." Would they be fair game?
And what does "limited drone strikes" even mean? Is it the number of drones they would employ, or is it the size of the destruction caused that would be "limited"?
And how do you separate the terrorists from the rest of a society? Do terrorists live in convenient little communes, pockets of nastiness, isolated away from the rest of the inhabitants of their country?
Can you kill a terrorist without harming non-terrorists? Do we now possess 100% accurate "terrorist-seeking drones" that make no mistakes?
Has anyone asked if there would be no "collateral damage"? Would these limited drone strikes have special powers so they would never hit say a wedding party, a funeral procession, a school or a hospital?
Nobody ever ASKS Major Gabbard to further elaborate on what exactly a policy of "limited drone strikes" would entail. Nobody ever asks what would be the "limit" on these drone strikes. Nobody ever asks how the targets would be selected. And nobody ever asks how many collateral deaths would be considered "acceptable".
Is Assad a terrorist? Maduro? Would they be fair game in this policy of "limited drone strikes" on terrorists? Call a leader of a foreign country a terrorist, and suddenly we are in the midst of a regime change war disguised as an attack on terrorists. Where would this end?
Tulsi has been consistently outspoken protecting American rights and is one of a very small handful of Democrsts many conservatives can stomach. I agree though, be wary, she is one of Schwab's WEF young global leader graduates which is always a red flag. Still, you gotta love it when Dems get red pilled and jump ship. Let's go Brandon.
I like her too. She is smart, articulate, and loves our country. I remember watching the primary debates with her and thought she was the only sane person on the stage. I give her kudos for being brave enough to leave the scary Democrats.
Tulsi Gabbard needs to reevaluate her anti-gun position with the same common sense that she has applied to the rest of the Democratic platform and she might become a very good libertarian candidate.
I don’t think she is advocating or voting for a smaller government. She is not a conservative. She just recognizes that the democrat party is off the rails. I’m glad she is at least honorable enough to do what she is doing, even if I still disagree with her politics. I congratulate her.
I encourage everyone to read Tulsi’s first Substack post if you haven’t already:
• https://tulsi.substack.com/p/why-im-leaving-the-democratic-party
As I previously promised my readers, I did ask her (https://tulsi.substack.com/p/why-im-leaving-the-democratic-party/comment/9657480) about her WEF and CFR associations while applauding her for the good work she has done and this significant step toward liberation from partisan politics. We shall see if she responds or takes me up on my offer to participate in an interview.
I heard her comments on the radio.
She finally gets it.
She’s no conservative, but even she can see how bad the Dims have gotten.
IMO the national Democratic Party should be investigated for violating the RICO statutes. They are a clear and present danger to our constitutional republic.
Nope. Wrong.
re Tulsi Gabbard’s record
from Andy Christensen
1. Council of Foreign Relations
2. WEF New Young Global Leader
3. Promoter of 9/11 Lies
4. Covid propagator
5. Persecuted Hawaiian Homeless (Bill #54)
6. High Level Zionist ....
7. Lied about Assad
8. Supported Hillary even after HRC committed felonies in the Democratic Primary.
PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH!
She trades on her good looks and being well-spoken.
What is your opinion based on?!
Do you base it on her (scripted) public appearances and interviews?
Have you ever researched her actual voting record?
Interesting. I'm glad she feels she doesn't fit in there. For me, I wouldn't be enthusiatic about her unless she took strong stands against covid tyranny and acknowledged Biden may not have been legitimately elected. Then maybe.
CONTROLLED OPPOSITION!
Tulsi is the new Bernie!
When Tulsi condemns the deadly clot shots and dares to call out the CV HOAX, and it’s perpetrators - Fauci, Gates, WEF, CDC, WHO, FDA, NIH, NIAID, the MSM, and her good buddy and mentor Klaus Schwab, then I might pay her some mind.
I’m with Tulsi in leaving the Democratic Party. Too much BigTech n Bloomberg influence. The way Bernie was treated in 2016 was atrocious. In 2020 with candidates like Tulsi and Andrew the party decided on Joe. There agenda is no longer mine as they have rocketed leftward and elite tail is wagging the dog.
Don't trust her...
Until she rejects Marxism and collectivism in all forms, use caution.
My 1st political axiom is "Anyone who has no problem with women killing innocent babies in the womb cannot be ultimately trusted since their moral compass is severely damaged." They are the ultimate "ends justifies the means" people. If the most innocent humans are not safe, then they can rationalize any other horror. Beware of cheerleading politicians who don't work to end abortion.
Tulsi allows herself to be labeled as “anti-war”, but that is untrue! Actually, Tulsi says on her web site that she's a "dove when it comes to Regime Change Wars but a warhawk when it comes to terrorists".
She says she wouldn't end our Drone Program, and favors "limited drone strikes on terrorists." Whatever that might be! "Limited drone strikes" is a purposely ambiguous statement,
But who gets to determine which individuals are "terrorists" in the first place? What kind of evidence would be used to determine if an individual meets the definition of "terrorist"?
Here in the United States, environmental activists, trying to shut down pipelines, or expose cruel factory farming practices are labeled "environmental terrorists." Would they be fair game?
And what does "limited drone strikes" even mean? Is it the number of drones they would employ, or is it the size of the destruction caused that would be "limited"?
And how do you separate the terrorists from the rest of a society? Do terrorists live in convenient little communes, pockets of nastiness, isolated away from the rest of the inhabitants of their country?
Can you kill a terrorist without harming non-terrorists? Do we now possess 100% accurate "terrorist-seeking drones" that make no mistakes?
Has anyone asked if there would be no "collateral damage"? Would these limited drone strikes have special powers so they would never hit say a wedding party, a funeral procession, a school or a hospital?
Nobody ever ASKS Major Gabbard to further elaborate on what exactly a policy of "limited drone strikes" would entail. Nobody ever asks what would be the "limit" on these drone strikes. Nobody ever asks how the targets would be selected. And nobody ever asks how many collateral deaths would be considered "acceptable".
Is Assad a terrorist? Maduro? Would they be fair game in this policy of "limited drone strikes" on terrorists? Call a leader of a foreign country a terrorist, and suddenly we are in the midst of a regime change war disguised as an attack on terrorists. Where would this end?
Tulsi has been consistently outspoken protecting American rights and is one of a very small handful of Democrsts many conservatives can stomach. I agree though, be wary, she is one of Schwab's WEF young global leader graduates which is always a red flag. Still, you gotta love it when Dems get red pilled and jump ship. Let's go Brandon.
With my own experience in war zones in the Middle East, I share so many identical views with her.
She is fantastic! I love this amazing woman! She's a politician I trust.
I like her too. She is smart, articulate, and loves our country. I remember watching the primary debates with her and thought she was the only sane person on the stage. I give her kudos for being brave enough to leave the scary Democrats.
Tulsi Gabbard needs to reevaluate her anti-gun position with the same common sense that she has applied to the rest of the Democratic platform and she might become a very good libertarian candidate.
Tulsi also needs to quit the CFR.
I'm very hopeful for her, but she needs to make a clean break. Everyone makes mistakes and let's hope she is now on a better path for the future.
I don’t think she is advocating or voting for a smaller government. She is not a conservative. She just recognizes that the democrat party is off the rails. I’m glad she is at least honorable enough to do what she is doing, even if I still disagree with her politics. I congratulate her.