Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Tulsi Gabbard came out swinging in her campaign announcement speech. She's the devil coming for the disembodied heads the Olde Guard.

Be afraid, Corporate America, be very, very afraid.
The media machine is already out to destroy Gabbard. As soon as her run was announced it was like a switch was flipped.

Even liberal media boutiques went from portraying Gabbard as this unorthodox liberal but natural leader with a bright future to a flawed weirdo longshot.

I guess the lesson from 2016 is for the media to anoint the DNC chosen one. And that's Kamala Harris.

The whole primary thing is bullshit thuggery. I was reading about delegates already being committed to Harris. Political rags portraying Harris as the new face of the DNC.

There's no way this landscape of candidates will be primaried fairly. By that I mean vetting the best candidate for the country and the best candidate against Trump or whatever GOP candidate.

I can't even imagine the DNC allowing Harris and Gabbard to face off. They'll probably do the debates in two tiers and Harris will debate Biden and Gillibrand and in round two Gabbard will debate some guy in a bear costume.

And Harris will go into the grist mill of the general election. And everyone will delight because she's Hillary 2.0. And we'll have a Democratic loss by a dozen electoral votes...

... and the Tulsi Gabbard fans will be like "told you so". Just like the Bernie fans in 2016.

Gabbard on a ticket excites people. She's not going to run on her gender. None of this glass ceiling shit. It's my turn now. She'll run on actual principles and tell people they're Russia's bitch.

Harris will depress people. Hillary 2.0. Same weak politics. Hard loads from corporate interests. Faux progressive. Identity politics.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@CopperCicada I noticed that there are some negative stories about Bernie doing the rounds just as its believed he is about yo announce he is running.

@Burnley123 The conservative yarn is that the media has "liberal bias". I would say that it has "establishment bias". Any candidate who colors too far outside the lines is torpedoed as a matter of course. Sanders and Gabbard are being sabotaged in advance of the primary because the DNC can't afford a split in the left like 2016. But this also happens on the right. TrumpCorp (TM) wants 2020 to be a big frat party and cuddle fest for Trump, and candidates like Kasich and Corker are invisible. Pay $$, create reality. Woot.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Interesting. In a quick search of her, yes Corporate America will be afraid. It would also be wise of the Democrats to promote a younger woman against Trump, sad how politics are this way, as his misogynist meanderings will hurt him more.
lightningblue · 22-25, M
@SW-User eh you dont get me at all
what I'm saying is Trump isnt afraid of going in debate with her
he will do his show, the Trump style
and you can have faith, but we saw last time lots of people likes his shit
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@lightningblue Clinton didn't argue for popular opinions, positions, and legislature. Clinton is a corporatist piece of shit who takes money from special interest groups and sells out to foreign finance just like Trump does. Clinton is essentially Trump but without the anti-environment and anti-abortion sentiments.
@lightningblue Yes, I do and it's why I responded like I did. I decided to not engage an actual debate because there isn't one with you. It's how you treat, back at you.
Graylight · 51-55, F
Unfortunately, after alienating the entire LGBTQ community, she stands little to no chance.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@CopperCicada Does she not hold anti-gay views now?
@Graylight From what I can tell, she changed her stance in 2012. And since then has supported LBGT rights.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC (the hurricane symbol peeps)) gave her a rating of 100% during the 115th congress, and something like 90% during the previous two sessions. She's opposed the [i]Defense of Marriage Act[/i] and supported the ruling in [i]Obergeffel v. Hodges[/i]. She co-sponsored the [i]Respect for Marriage Act[/i] during her first term in congress.

I would be more than interested to know what her anti-gay views are *now, today*. Not in her early 20's.
@Graylight If you have some source on her current anti-gay politics, I'd like to know.
Keep voting for the losers.
@BlueMetalChick And have a nice haircut...
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@SW-User [quote]Kulinski is skeptical of many claims made by mainstream media figures and politicians regarding Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections -- NO![/quote]
Well the only confirmed involvement of Russia was the information they gave to Wiki Leaks on Hillary Clinton and that's information we had the right to know anyway, so personally I don't think that should be illegal.

[quote]He advocates for single-payer healthcare - No, I want to improve the ACA for at least five years.[/quote]
Sorry to tell you but about seven tenths of the country is against you. America is the only developed nation that still uses private health insurance. Our government pays more for it, our citizens pay more for it, we have worse health outcomes, thirty million citizens have no coverage, and up to forty five thousand people die every year because they haven't got access to basic healthcare. The ACA was not bad. It was a definite improvement over what George W. Bush had running. There are many good provisions of Obamacare, like allowing parents to keep their children on their plan until age 26, protections for preexisting conditions, and the requirement that insurance companies spend more on actual coverage than they do on overhead and such. But it has glaring problems, and many of these problems could be solved with a single-payer system. Remember that there isn't one set playbook for single-payer either. There's many different "flavors" of nationalized healthcare. Britain, for example, uses public money to fund publicly owned, staffed, and administrated hospitals and clinics. France on the other hand keeps private ownership, staffing, and administration of the hospitals and clinics but simply funds them with public money. Australia and Canada both allow for "supplemental coverage" which basically means you aren't required to use public health insurance. If you so choose, you CAN still use private coverage, but the default is single-payer unless you specify otherwise.

[quote]Free tuition at public colleges and universities -- No, can't afford it, I believe in "skin in the game" and a means test would be unfair to the middle class.[/quote]
Look if you don't like the idea of tax-funded college then just say it. Don't lie to me and say that it's because it's not affordable. Just like single-payer healthcare, every single other developed nation has this.

Here's a specific number for you. With the money that was used to increase military spending in 2018 - not the military budget but just the INCREASE that was added to the already existing military budget - free college and university could have been paid for every student in America for two years, with no taxation. You still think it's not affordable?

[quote]A living wage -- No, I support gradual increases to minimum wage to keep up with inflation.[/quote]
So in other words you support a living wage. Because what those words mean when elaborated is "an increase in wages to allow for workers in a region to make enough money that they can pay rent and buy food by working one full-time job." So if you want to gradually increase the minimum wage to compensate for inflation then you support a living wage.

Furthermore, the capital gains rate should be permanently chained to inflation to make this even more effective.

[quote]Reduction in military spending -- Yes, but probably not as much as he is.[/quote]
We can flesh this one out by discussing how much you feel the military needs in money.

[quote]An end to military interventions -- Depends, I'm not a pacifist.[/quote]
Neither is he, nor am I. "End to military interventions" means "end the nine different illegal offensive wars that America is waging across the Middle East." You don't have to be a pacifist to believe we shouldn't be wasting money and lives, not to mention killing thousands of innocent people and violating both constitutional and international law, by bombing and drone striking nine different countries, none of which have attacked us. That last part is the critical portion. NONE of the countries we are currently fighting wars in have attacked the United States. Let me name them for you: Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Niger, Syria, and Mali. Which of those nations do we need to be bombing right now?

[quote]He takes a generally protectionist approach to trade -- No, I'm a proud globalist.[/quote]
I have no strong opinions on this, only mild opinions.

[quote]Money in politics -- There should be many more limitations.[/quote]
This one is a whole conversation in itself.
Thanks for the feedback. I think you have some good points but I’m afraid I’m just not radical enough to adopt your positions. I believe in slower change over time and that effective and passible legislation requires it. w@BlueMetalChick
Northwest · M
She's the new Bernie, so she's going to further splinter the Democratic vote. Not all corporate is evil, but the corporate/government relationship, through lobbying needs to be addressed in a rational way.

Trump promised to get rid of the lobbyists, and he did, but to him, it means moving them into his inner circle.
She’s ight. I’d probably vote for her out of all the candidates rn...other than my boy Andrew yang lmfao (jk)
akindheart · 61-69, F
@BlueMetalChick i saw the polls. Biden is so far winning at 26% with Bernie right behind him. I have to check out Gabbard
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@akindheart Well Biden would be better than some but definitely not my ideal president. I'd vastly prefer him to Trump though.
akindheart · 61-69, F
@BlueMetalChick well he is the most "political" politician but i don't trust him one bit.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
Is Bernie definantely gonna run?
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@GunSmoke9 Both the people and the government pay less money for their healthcare than the US does. This isn't my opinion, this is verifiable fact that has been covered in multiple studies and investigations carried out by the World Health Organization, the Commonwealth Fund, and similar institutions.

The rich don't pay for what the socialists want. That's what you don't seem to get. Socialism is not "take money away from rich people." Socialism is "stop letting rich people take money that doesn't belong to them." What percentages do you pay for your tax bracket? I guarantee you the wealthy pay a lower percentage. A suggestion for a 3% tax on people with an annual income of one billion dollars or more was proposed and FBN called it communist. Three percent. For people who make a billion or more per year. You and I pay a much larger portion of the money we earn.
GunSmoke9 · 56-60, M
@BlueMetalChick You are talking about healthcare, I'm talking about taxes countries pay. Switzerland 40 percent, France, Spain, England, 45 percent. Denmark 57, Sweden 61. America, 37 percent.
I said that the rich alone can't pay for what socialist like AOC want.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@GunSmoke9 The rich aren't supposed to pay for what socialists want. What socialists want is for the rich to stop taking money that they didn't earn and that they don't have a right to. No part of any socialist policy requires the rich alone to pay for it. How many times do I have to explain this to you.

Let's try something else. Do you think it is acceptable for people who make over one billion dollars a year to pay a much lower percentage in taxes than people who make forty thousand dollars a year? Because that is currently the scenario. And, a large portion of the taxes that a person who makes forty thousand dollars a year pays goes to the person who makes one billion per year. Do you think that's a good thing?
lightningblue · 22-25, M
why be afraid, what is she about
lightningblue · 22-25, M
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@lightningblue Wait, is that Info Wars [i]supporting[/i] her?
lightningblue · 22-25, M
@BlueMetalChick he post whatever he wants lol maybe in a month he will be against her
msros · F
Old Mother Gubbard.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@msros Lol, I like that. Maybe "young mother" since she's barely even old enough to run for president.
She had an affair with the Senator from Wisconsin.
@BiasForAction It's sort of moot. The DNC will eat her like a hyena eats its own young.
You’d probably be surprised then how many affairs are kept secret and how many published rumors are untrue
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
@BiasForAction And? Bill Clinton sparked a nationwide crisis when he had an affair with Lewinsky. Donald Trump had an affair with a porn actress. Who cares what these people do in their personal lives. A sitting president could be having gay sex with hookers every night and I wouldn't care. I care about what they do that affects my life.

Post Comment
18,431 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Forums Topic Members