Tulsi Gabbard exposes/embarrases the globalist, pro-war neo-liberals and neo-con on The View!

[ModerationNow!]

This is a fairly long clip of the "Jimmy Dore show". Jimmy Dore is no conservative, he is definitely left of center. He was on The Young Turks after all! But his views illustrate how classical liberals now have more in common with most of the modern, everyday conservatives than with either the progressive far-left, or the centrist, corporatist, globalist neo-liberals. Here, Tulsi Gabbard visits The View, where she points out how all the many, many military interventions and wars we've gotten involved in since WW2, have failed, cost countless lives on ALL sides, and cost tens of trillions of dollars. You'll notice that NONE of The View hosts acknowledge or grasp any of her obviously correct points. All they do is ignore her comments, try to demonize and insult her, while advocating for continued wars and regime changes!

The neo-libs and neo-cons have more in common than you might think, including the desire for seemingly endless US military intervention and regime change, without ANY concern for the fact that it has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried since WW2, costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives! It always ends in misery for the people of the countries where we attack, and lots of dead or maimed American troops(and breeds terrorist groups).

But the neo-libs and neo-con at The View CLEARLY don't care about that, as they attack moderate Democrat and military vet Tulsi Gabbard for her opposition to continued military and CIA "interventionism". We have sanctions on Venezuela, which is hurting the people, while the CIA and other elite neo-cons and neo-libs are calling for regime change there now, which is motivated by their HUGE oil resources. The Syrian war was basically started by us, as we shipped weapons to "rebels"(many of whom were terrorists), and we are doing it because Israel/AIPAC want Assad taken out, and because US gov't & corporations want to build a natural gas pipeline across Syria!

 

[DaveFagan]

The more she talks, the more I like her. She's a veteran and they can't question her patriotism. If Bernie Sanders has a brain, he'll sign her up. Bernie has great domestic knowledge, but is a genuine dumbsss on the International scene. They'd make a great team.
/

 

[Fishking]

This is a fairly long clip of the "Jimmy Dore show". Jimmy Dore is no conservative, he is definitely left of center. He was on The Young Turks after all! But his views illustrate how classical liberals now have more in common with most of the modern, everyday conservatives than with either the progressive far-left, or the centrist, corporatist, globalist neo-liberals. Here, Tulsi Gabbard visits The View, where she points out how all the many, many military interventions and wars we've gotten involved in since WW2, have failed, cost countless lives on ALL sides, and cost tens of trillions of dollars. You'll notice that NONE of The View hosts acknowledge or grasp any of her obviously correct points. All they do is ignore her comments, try to demonize and insult her, while advocating for continued wars and regime changes!

The neo-libs and neo-cons have more in common than you might think, including the desire for seemingly endless US military intervention and regime change, without ANY concern for the fact that it has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried since WW2, costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives! It always ends in misery for the people of the countries where we attack, and lots of dead or maimed American troops(and breeds terrorist groups).

But the neo-libs and neo-con at The View CLEARLY don't care about that, as they attack moderate Democrat and military vet Tulsi Gabbard for her opposition to continued military and CIA "interventionism". We have sanctions on Venezuela, which is hurting the people, while the CIA and other elite neo-cons and neo-libs are calling for regime change there now, which is motivated by their HUGE oil resources. The Syrian war was basically started by us, as we shipped weapons to "rebels"(many of whom were terrorists), and we are doing it because Israel/AIPAC want Assad taken out, and because US gov't & corporations want to build a natural gas pipeline across Syria!

It's sad that we have two war parties now and that we'll freak out over things like micro-aggressions in the U.S. while at the same time call for, and support, policies that have directly created the biggest humanitarian crises in modern history.

 

[slick]

The more she talks, the more I like her. She's a veteran and they can't question her patriotism. If Bernie Sanders has a brain, he'll sign her up. Bernie has great domestic knowledge, but is a genuine dumbsss on the International scene. They'd make a great team.
/

I've liked her ever since she was first presented on TV a few years back as the new congresswoman from hawaii & as a
military officer who served in the Mideast.

I don't agree with everything Tulsi says but she has integrity going for her having surrendered a position on the
powerful DNC committee to stand nearly alone against Hillary.

I think Congresswoman Gabbard is far to liberal but I respect her as someone with principles and a brain,
qualities that are sadly lacking in the other Democratic candidates & for a democrat woman she's unusually attractive.

Honestly people keep trashing on her, but I keep liking her. If I would ever change stripes and vote democrat
it would be for someone like her. A little over a month ago, when Gabbard spoke in support of
pulling troops out of Syria, that the msm immediately began calling her a tool of Putin and Trump,
and also threw in her face that David Duke supported the withdrawal?

 

[DH Kirkwood]

This is a fairly long clip of the "Jimmy Dore show". Jimmy Dore is no conservative, he is definitely left of center. He was on The Young Turks after all! But his views illustrate how classical liberals now have more in common with most of the modern, everyday conservatives than with either the progressive far-left, or the centrist, corporatist, globalist neo-liberals. Here, Tulsi Gabbard visits The View, where she points out how all the many, many military interventions and wars we've gotten involved in since WW2, have failed, cost countless lives on ALL sides, and cost tens of trillions of dollars. You'll notice that NONE of The View hosts acknowledge or grasp any of her obviously correct points. All they do is ignore her comments, try to demonize and insult her, while advocating for continued wars and regime changes!

The neo-libs and neo-cons have more in common than you might think, including the desire for seemingly endless US military intervention and regime change, without ANY concern for the fact that it has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried since WW2, costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives! It always ends in misery for the people of the countries where we attack, and lots of dead or maimed American troops(and breeds terrorist groups).

But the neo-libs and neo-con at The View CLEARLY don't care about that, as they attack moderate Democrat and military vet Tulsi Gabbard for her opposition to continued military and CIA "interventionism". We have sanctions on Venezuela, which is hurting the people, while the CIA and other elite neo-cons and neo-libs are calling for regime change there now, which is motivated by their HUGE oil resources. The Syrian war was basically started by us, as we shipped weapons to "rebels"(many of whom were terrorists), and we are doing it because Israel/AIPAC want Assad taken out, and because US gov't & corporations want to build a natural gas pipeline across Syria!

I'm hoping that Bernie picks her for VP. Nobody comes close.

 

[Phys251]

I'm hoping that Bernie picks her for VP. Nobody comes close.

A Sanders-Gabbard ticket would be a dream for Donald Trump and the military-industrial complex.

 

[Obscurity]

Tulsi is amazing and has my support. Her foreign policy is stellar, and her answers on this clip were awesome. The media is engaged in a smear against her.

 

[DH Kirkwood]

A Sanders-Gabbard ticket would be a dream for Donald Trump and the military-industrial complex.

How so?

 

[Phys251]

How so?

Because then the Democrats would be lucky to win a state such as Connecticut.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I don't get what all the intrigue is about. Gabbard is a fairly milquetoast speaker and politician. Personally am indifferent. I think she should angle for a Cabinet position as opposed to President. Too young and inexperienced.

 

[Surrealistik]

I don't get what all the intrigue is about. Gabbard is a fairly milquetoast speaker and politician. Personally am indifferent. I think she should angle for a Cabinet position as opposed to President. Too young and inexperienced.

Integrity, good foreign and domestic policy; generally things most other Dem candidates are lacking or struggle with in some permutation.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Integrity, good foreign and domestic policy; generally things most other Dem candidates are lacking or struggle with in some permutation.

No, I meant the hysteria. Its very AOC-like only from the right AND left not just the right as it is with AOC.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Because then the Democrats would be lucky to win a state such as Connecticut.

Given how utterly bat **** ****ing stupid the average poll-goer is, you're probably right!

 

[Perotista]

I've liked her ever since she was first presented on TV a few years back as the new congresswoman from hawaii & as a
military officer who served in the Mideast.

I don't agree with everything Tulsi says but she has integrity going for her having surrendered a position on the
powerful DNC committee to stand nearly alone against Hillary.

I think Congresswoman Gabbard is far to liberal but I respect her as someone with principles and a brain,
qualities that are sadly lacking in the other Democratic candidates & for a democrat woman she's unusually attractive.

Honestly people keep trashing on her, but I keep liking her. If I would ever change stripes and vote democrat
it would be for someone like her. A little over a month ago, when Gabbard spoke in support of
pulling troops out of Syria, that the msm immediately began calling her a tool of Putin and Trump,
and also threw in her face that David Duke supported the withdrawal?

LOL, okay David Duke. Now I supported getting our troops out of Syria also. I suppose because David Duke supported the withdrawal, now we are all racists and tools of Putin and Trump.

Let me tell you something I noticed a very long time ago, most Democrats support wars a Democratic president starts while most Republicans oppose them. The opposite is true also, most Republicans support wars a Republican president starts while most Democrats oppose them. Which side of the aisle most of the support comes from depends whether there is an R or a D next to the president's name.

 

[Nap]

I don't get what all the intrigue is about. Gabbard is a fairly milquetoast speaker and politician. Personally am indifferent. I think she should angle for a Cabinet position as opposed to President. Too young and inexperienced.

She would have more experience than the last 2 Presidents combined.

Edit. Most of the intrigue surrounding her has to do with her being anti-war and not simply saying so as a campaign slogan. She is also not a partisan hack that will stand up for her beliefs even if it isn't in her political best interests (See: Calling out Obama on arming rebels, stepping down from DNC over Bernie's treatment) and people respond to that type of integrity as it is something lacking in the majority of those we have currently in DC.

 

[DH Kirkwood]

She would have more experience than the last 2 Presidents combined.

Edit. Most of the intrigue surrounding her has to do with her being anti-war and not simply saying so as a campaign slogan. She is also not a partisan hack that will stand up for her beliefs even if it isn't in her political best interests (See: Calling out Obama on arming rebels, stepping down from DNC over Bernie's treatment) and people respond to that type of integrity as it is something lacking in the majority of those we have currently in DC.

This.

There are few honest actors in politics. For me, a consistent display of integrity is far more important than experience or age. I can't help but feel that those who often over-emphasize age and experience are either parroting what others hae said, are speaking as an older person who can't come to terms with someone younger being in such a position, or are otherwise without a viable argument against a candidate.

 

[Nap]

This.

There are few honest actors in politics. For me, a consistent display of integrity is far more important than experience or age. I can't help but feel that those who often over-emphasize age and experience are either parroting what others hae said, are speaking as an older person who can't come to terms with someone younger being in such a position, or are otherwise without a viable argument against a candidate.

My issue is that the entire premise of being "inexperienced" is just simply wrong. As I stated earlier she already has more experience in politics then both the previous Presidents combined (admittedly that really isn't saying much considering Obama had little experience and Trump had 0) but also throw in her military experience with multiple tours of duty and it gives her unique insight that no other candidate possesses. If there was ever a chance to get me to vote for a Democrat the time is now and with her as a candidate. I'm against the majority of her domestic policies, but I wouldn't hesitate putting my vote down for her and I think there would be a suprising amount of support from independents and even more right leaning people if she was given a fair shot. However, we both know that isn't going to happen. Hell, the government propaganda networks are already in full smear mode against her just as they were against Ron Paul.

 

[Nap]

No, I meant the hysteria. Its very AOC-like only from the right AND left not just the right as it is with AOC.

The hysteria is nothing but propaganda being put out in order to smear her as a kook so they can write her off. They are using virtually the same playbook they did when Ron Paul was running for President. Someone that is truly anti-war will never get a fair chance with the MSM as long as they are in the pockets of the 2 parties. Military intervention is simply too profitable.

 

[Geoist]

It seems the corporate media is not a big fan of hers, which is a good sign. While Gabbard has made some missteps in her campaign early on, I really like a lot of what she has said (and to automatically disqualify her for misguided views on homosexuality decades ago is ridiculous.)

 

[Geoist]

It's sad that we have two war parties now and that we'll freak out over things like micro-aggressions in the U.S. while at the same time call for, and support, policies that have directly created the biggest humanitarian crises in modern history.

While to some extent I agree, our government's interventionism around the world is no reason to turn a blind eye when other countries try to mess with our elections, electrical grid, cybersecurity, etc.

 

[Geoist]

I'm hoping that Bernie picks her for VP. Nobody comes close.

I can only imagine the s***-storm coming their way from CNN if that happens. :lol:

 

[Nap]

It seems the corporate media is not a big fan of hers, which is a good sign. While Gabbard has made some missteps in her campaign early on, I really like a lot of what she has said (and to automatically disqualify her for misguided views on homosexuality decades ago is ridiculous.)

I do find it odd that some would question her sincerity in support of LBGT causes when she has essentially perfect record in supporting Pro-LBGT causes and cosponsor for much of the legislation to that end.

 

[Geoist]

I do find it odd that some would question her sincerity in support of LBGT causes when she has essentially perfect record in supporting Pro-LBGT causes and cosponsor for much of the legislation to that end.

The media considers her a threat to the Establishment so they will grasp at whatever they can to discredit her. MSM may be 'liberal' to some degree, but there are some things they will not tolerate and that includes almost any criticism of Israel as well as promotion for a non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

[Fishking]

While to some extent I agree, our government's interventionism around the world is no reason to turn a blind eye when other countries try to mess with our elections, electrical grid, cybersecurity, etc.

Define "mess with our elections" and how do you decide which foreign countries are allowed to do it vs the ones that aren't?

 

[Geoist]

Define "mess with our elections" and how do you decide which foreign countries are allowed to do it vs the ones that aren't?

Who said anything about allowing any country to do it? We can look at the hacking and theft of political party emails as an example. Should that be ignored?