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

@SW-User Sorry, I guess I should vote for a retard like Kamala Harris instead, huh?

@BlueMetalChick Depends. I’m interested in viable candidates, not bumper stickers.

@SW-User I'm interested in candidates who support the right policies, not a score card.

@BlueMetalChick You're doing it wrong.

@SW-User Supporting candidates with the right policies is doing it wrong? I just told you that I look at a candidate based on their policy platform rather than their identity and your response is to tell me that I am wrong to do so?

Well that gives me all the information I need to know about you, thanks.

@BlueMetalChick I don't stipulate they are the right policies, and I'm not interested in a Democratic party nominee who can't win. You know nothing about the United States. Go start a Leninist party if you like. That seems your speed. I'm not going to let your ilk destroy the chance to beat Trump.

@SW-User Yeah. By supporting the candidates most likely to beat Trump, e.g. Sanders, Gabbard, and Ojeda (before he resigned) or maybe even Warren, I'm letting Trump win. So what I should do according to you is vote for whoever is LEAST likely to beat Trump.

Lemme guess. You're gonna support either Harris or Booker.

@BlueMetalChick I don't know who I will support yet. I don't think Booker, though. Could be Harris or Warren. Too early to tell. Gabbard is a rank opportunist and it shows.

@SW-User If you support Warren then we share a lot of common ground. If you support Harris, then I have I have no respect for you. She went out of her way to defend Goldman Sachs when she was supposed to prosecute them. She takes big money and crafts legislation in the favor of special interest groups who pay her. I have no tolerance for that.

@BlueMetalChick Please, do not respect me. It would concern me. Warren is an adult. Gabbard will say anything.

You may want to consider:

During her run for state legislature in 2002, Gabbard told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, "Working with my father, Mike Gabbard, and others to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, I learned that real leaders are willing to make personal sacrifices for the common good. I will bring that attitude of public service to the legislature."

@SW-User And you'd prefer a Goldman Sachs jackoff to that? Someone who does not support single payer healthcare or funding education or infrastructure, has voted in favor of civil asset forfeiture, denounces the idea of pulling out of Afghanistan and Syria, encourages special interests and their ability to buy politicians, and opposed the Consumer Financial Protectiom Bureau?

@BlueMetalChick I don't know what the deal is with Goldman Sachs, but you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for what all of her positions are. You're lying about her opinion of healthcare, for example, and I'm not for single payer just yet anyway.

I'm a Democrat, not a leftist. BTW, Bernie should never have been allowed to run as a Democrat.

@BlueMetalChick And you still won't answer about her anti-gay positions. There are other choices. You're backing a loser.

@SW-User Unless she has changed her stance very recently, like Booker did, then Harris still does not support it.

@SW-User What's the anti gay position? That thing about marriage? I do not understand. Is she attempting to say she opposes gay marriage?

@BlueMetalChick Look it up if you want to know more.

@SW-User A point of interest to our conversation. Do you know Kyle Kulinski?

@BlueMetalChick I'm sure he's a lovely person, but as he voted for Jill Stein I will never forgive him.

I went through some of his positions. Not much I completely agree with. You'll forgive me, I'm a centrist. There wasn't much I disagreed with Obama about. The Republicans were dead wrong to consider Obama a radical. That was code for black.

Kulinski is skeptical of many claims made by mainstream media figures and politicians regarding Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections -- NO!

He advocates for single-payer healthcare - No, I want to improve the ACA for at least five years.

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.

A living wage -- No, I support gradual increases to minimum wage to keep up with inflation.

Reduction in military spending -- Yes, but probably not as much as he is.

An end to military interventions -- Depends, I'm not a pacifist.

He takes a generally protectionist approach to trade -- No, I'm a proud globalist.

Money in politics -- There should be many more limitations.

Free speech -- YES!

@BlueMetalChick Oh, I re-read my posts. My apologies for being a dick, but I can't go through another Ralph Nader/Jill Stein debacle. Their supporters should be ashamed, but I know they never will be.

I lived through eight years of Bush. Eight! And now Orange 45. For ideological purity...damn.

@SW-User I have a lot to say about this but I'm getting my hair cut at the barber shop right now, so my reply will come later.

@BlueMetalChick We'll never convince the other, but if you want to vent later go for it!

@BlueMetalChick And have a nice haircut...

@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