Like you, I sensed Tulsi was bullshit. She talks like she's reading a script, much like the spellbinder Obama, who I also disliked.
Why do people like these big talking bullshitters? Same reason why Caitlin fell for the con-vid nonsense... she's so full of herself that she trusted both things on image alone.
Tulsi is particularly disappointing. I met her at a campaign event and gave her a copy of my "Survival of the Richest." I seriously doubt she read it. I don't know how either her or RFK, Jr. can spew out this kind of pro-Zionist propaganda with straight faces. Thanks for consistently supporting peace, Cindy!
Yes! I never fell for the rhetoric in her speeches and public appearances, either. If you searched her voting record, and even the policy positions on her website, you’d get an entirely different story! I wrote extensively about it a few years ago. Here’s what I wrote:
“ Tulsi is NOT our friend! Please do not be fooled. She is no pacifist!
“Research the Homeless Bill #54, which she introduced in Hawaii.
The idea was to remove the homeless, so the wealthy Hawaiians and tourists didn’t have to ever see them.
She promised to save their possessions when they were forced to leave their encampments, but instead she stood by as all their possessions were taken to the dump.
All the charities and civil rights groups were against this law. But Tulsi sided with the wealthy. Ask Hawaii residents how they felt about that bill!
And although she is happy to mislead voters, Tulsi herself admits that she is not a Pacifist.
Actually, it 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".
Remember this is a woman who served in the trumped up Iraq War, (started with a FF), and then felt the desire to RE-enlist!
She says she wouldn't end our Drone Program, and favors "limited drone strikes on terrorists." Whatever that might be!
She chooses slaughter over diplomacy! But who decides who is a terrorist, anyway? And what exact amount is "limited drone strikes"?
"Limited drone strikes" is a purposely ambiguous statement.
And 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 communities, 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".
If we follow the advice of our beloved YouTube hosts, who constantly call pro-drone candidates "pacifists" or "anti-war", and we give these candidates our precious vote, we might be shocked and disappointed if they actually got elected and then they started bombing other countries to "get rid of the terrorists".
Is Assad a terrorist? 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?
The difference is, this new breed of "semi-pacifists" just don't call these types of bellicose actions "war". They spend little time talking about Diplomacy as a better option, because they are worried that such talk might give the wrong message to the MIC.
Weapons manufacturing is one of our biggest industries. What chance would a candidate have if their policies seemed to threaten that industry? So we now have candidates who speak out of both sides of their mouths. They are against Regime Change wars, but pro-other types of war-like actions.
Not only is the Major’s drone policy unacceptable, but she also refuses to decry torture! When interviewed in India, a host pointed out that there is little evidence that torture even works, the Major implied that the “‘ury was still out on that issue!’
Also Tulsi has lied about Assad gassing his own people (which was proven false TWICE), and she is a member of the CFR, but she has denied being a graduate of Klaus Schwab’s WEF’s Young Global Leaders Program, claiming she was placed on the WEF’s website without her permission! Is this true? Who knows? She is also buddy, buddy with Indian Prime Minister (and dictator) Modi!
Gullible voters need to do some research, and not judge these candidates solely based on their speeches and interviews. Voters need to KNOW what they are buying! Research every candidates’ voting record. Research their donors. Otherwise you may be shocked when Gabbard starts droning Assad or some other leader of a resource rich country!
‘Better than’ other candidates’ is a damn low bar. It certainly won't inspire ME to vote for any of these faux ‘pacifists’, thanks!”
Tulsi was fun at first, and she did knock the pinot Grigio-swilling Kamala out of the race in that debate, but her anti-Islamic rhetoric really gave the game away. She's still spouting the "War on Terror" BS of W. I will admit that the Bashar al-Assad visit was kind of a fooler at the time, but she's shown her warmongering stripes on full display since then. The Tulsi Cocktail, perhaps: One part Fool, One part Tool--with a dash of "Aloha"...
No OWS supporter in Honolulu in 2010 was fooled by Tulsi Gabbard. I was an activist/camper at Occupy Wall Street in Honolulu - 2010-2013. It was known as DeOccupy Honolulu since Hawai’i had already been occupied since 1897 by USA military. During DeOccupy Councilmember Gabbard introduced Bill 54 aimed at attacking homeless and DeOccupy. On her Wikipedia page it says Bill 54 “authorized city workers to confiscate personal belongings stored on public property with 24 hours notice to its owner”. The comparison to Hillary Clinton is fair: Gabbard twists and turns as a snake, the White House her destination.
I was also fooled by Tulsi until she started playing the old bait and switch game. I'm ALWAYS fooled by fake populists. I know I'm a sucker on this topic, but knowing it doesn't prevent the initial attraction.
In 2019 I wrote an article for OpEd News called "Tulsi Gabbard's "Major" Deal Breaker" in which I tried to expose some of her hypocrisy, especially her fake 'anti-war' position. At the time, most readers didn't appreciate it, but thankfully the tide has turned a bit on her since then.
Never ever have goofball faith and false hope in these monsters, man.
You've been around these pigs, Cindy, to know that ALL politicians are putrid when they dial for dollars and when they love the eye of the needle Jews in Palestine.
They will go after us all for saying, hmm, the State of Israel is a Cancer, and all cancers must be eradicated.
Now now, how much hate does the average settler/land taker/home wrecker in Isra-Hell have?
Beyond Hope, Cindy. Bush and Obama, Kissinger and ALL the presidents and ALL the presidents' men, and who owns the media? Who owns Hollywood? There you have it.
But no matter what environmentalists do, our best efforts are insufficient. We’re losing badly, on every front. Those in power are hell-bent on destroying the planet, and most people don’t care.
Frankly, I don’t have much hope. But I think that’s a good thing. Hope is what keeps us chained to the system, the conglomerate of people and ideas and ideals that is causing the destruction of the Earth.
To start, there is the false hope that suddenly somehow the system may inexplicably change. Or technology will save us. Or the Great Mother. Or beings from Alpha Centauri. Or Jesus Christ. Or Santa Claus. All of these false hopes lead to inaction, or at least to ineffectiveness. One reason my mother stayed with my abusive father was that there were no battered women’s shelters in the ’50s and ’60s, but another was her false hope that he would change. False hopes bind us to unlivable situations, and blind us to real possibilities.
Derrick's great on many levels, but we need to eradicate the murderers. Sorry!
+--+
Hero: Marwa Osman, PhD, an accomplished Assistant Professor in Media Studies and a Producer/Presenter at Press TV. In this LIVE STREAM, we explore her insights on media, geopolitics, and more. We will dive into Lebanon's pivotal role in seeking a resolution for the Gaza conflict, gauge public sentiment regarding the significant US military presence near their coastline, and assess the strength and influence of Hezbollah.
Like you, I sensed Tulsi was bullshit. She talks like she's reading a script, much like the spellbinder Obama, who I also disliked.
Why do people like these big talking bullshitters? Same reason why Caitlin fell for the con-vid nonsense... she's so full of herself that she trusted both things on image alone.
Damn, I hurt my shoulder after reading this.
Patted myself on the back to rigorously, because I smelled the bullshit oozing out of this mean fake, the minute she entered the arena.
I can’t take all the credit.
Obama put my poop sniffer on high alert with his hijinks.
Hold your noses everybody.
There’s shit all over the place.
I know, I couldn't get my hand back there fast enough for the patting to begin.
LOL
But, doesn’t it feel good to have clean hands?
Keep on keepin’ on, sister.
LOL!!!
Tulsi is particularly disappointing. I met her at a campaign event and gave her a copy of my "Survival of the Richest." I seriously doubt she read it. I don't know how either her or RFK, Jr. can spew out this kind of pro-Zionist propaganda with straight faces. Thanks for consistently supporting peace, Cindy!
He's helped redefine "Children's Health Defense."
yes i agree Caitlin absolutely SHIT THE BED about covid....glad i can agree with her again, used to retweet all of her stuff.
Yes! I never fell for the rhetoric in her speeches and public appearances, either. If you searched her voting record, and even the policy positions on her website, you’d get an entirely different story! I wrote extensively about it a few years ago. Here’s what I wrote:
“ Tulsi is NOT our friend! Please do not be fooled. She is no pacifist!
“Research the Homeless Bill #54, which she introduced in Hawaii.
The idea was to remove the homeless, so the wealthy Hawaiians and tourists didn’t have to ever see them.
She promised to save their possessions when they were forced to leave their encampments, but instead she stood by as all their possessions were taken to the dump.
All the charities and civil rights groups were against this law. But Tulsi sided with the wealthy. Ask Hawaii residents how they felt about that bill!
And although she is happy to mislead voters, Tulsi herself admits that she is not a Pacifist.
Actually, it 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".
Remember this is a woman who served in the trumped up Iraq War, (started with a FF), and then felt the desire to RE-enlist!
She says she wouldn't end our Drone Program, and favors "limited drone strikes on terrorists." Whatever that might be!
She chooses slaughter over diplomacy! But who decides who is a terrorist, anyway? And what exact amount is "limited drone strikes"?
"Limited drone strikes" is a purposely ambiguous statement.
And 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 communities, 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".
If we follow the advice of our beloved YouTube hosts, who constantly call pro-drone candidates "pacifists" or "anti-war", and we give these candidates our precious vote, we might be shocked and disappointed if they actually got elected and then they started bombing other countries to "get rid of the terrorists".
Is Assad a terrorist? 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?
The difference is, this new breed of "semi-pacifists" just don't call these types of bellicose actions "war". They spend little time talking about Diplomacy as a better option, because they are worried that such talk might give the wrong message to the MIC.
Weapons manufacturing is one of our biggest industries. What chance would a candidate have if their policies seemed to threaten that industry? So we now have candidates who speak out of both sides of their mouths. They are against Regime Change wars, but pro-other types of war-like actions.
Not only is the Major’s drone policy unacceptable, but she also refuses to decry torture! When interviewed in India, a host pointed out that there is little evidence that torture even works, the Major implied that the “‘ury was still out on that issue!’
Also Tulsi has lied about Assad gassing his own people (which was proven false TWICE), and she is a member of the CFR, but she has denied being a graduate of Klaus Schwab’s WEF’s Young Global Leaders Program, claiming she was placed on the WEF’s website without her permission! Is this true? Who knows? She is also buddy, buddy with Indian Prime Minister (and dictator) Modi!
Gullible voters need to do some research, and not judge these candidates solely based on their speeches and interviews. Voters need to KNOW what they are buying! Research every candidates’ voting record. Research their donors. Otherwise you may be shocked when Gabbard starts droning Assad or some other leader of a resource rich country!
‘Better than’ other candidates’ is a damn low bar. It certainly won't inspire ME to vote for any of these faux ‘pacifists’, thanks!”
Tulsi was fun at first, and she did knock the pinot Grigio-swilling Kamala out of the race in that debate, but her anti-Islamic rhetoric really gave the game away. She's still spouting the "War on Terror" BS of W. I will admit that the Bashar al-Assad visit was kind of a fooler at the time, but she's shown her warmongering stripes on full display since then. The Tulsi Cocktail, perhaps: One part Fool, One part Tool--with a dash of "Aloha"...
No OWS supporter in Honolulu in 2010 was fooled by Tulsi Gabbard. I was an activist/camper at Occupy Wall Street in Honolulu - 2010-2013. It was known as DeOccupy Honolulu since Hawai’i had already been occupied since 1897 by USA military. During DeOccupy Councilmember Gabbard introduced Bill 54 aimed at attacking homeless and DeOccupy. On her Wikipedia page it says Bill 54 “authorized city workers to confiscate personal belongings stored on public property with 24 hours notice to its owner”. The comparison to Hillary Clinton is fair: Gabbard twists and turns as a snake, the White House her destination.
Thanks, was not aware.
I was also fooled by Tulsi until she started playing the old bait and switch game. I'm ALWAYS fooled by fake populists. I know I'm a sucker on this topic, but knowing it doesn't prevent the initial attraction.
Tulsi still seems to be a disciple of Kris Butler’s Science of Identity Foundation. Beware.
Hey, Chuck
I have long bewared of her, but thanks!
Nice to see you here
xo
Hi cindy, Pablo damon here, or paul from fl 2012 election, I still read you!
glad you are well enough to resist
Hi Paul, yes. I am great. Hope you are well
In 2019 I wrote an article for OpEd News called "Tulsi Gabbard's "Major" Deal Breaker" in which I tried to expose some of her hypocrisy, especially her fake 'anti-war' position. At the time, most readers didn't appreciate it, but thankfully the tide has turned a bit on her since then.
Like Bernie, Marianne and JFK Jr., Tulsi sure had me snowed. You're right Cindy, just another one of 'Those People'.
Never ever have goofball faith and false hope in these monsters, man.
You've been around these pigs, Cindy, to know that ALL politicians are putrid when they dial for dollars and when they love the eye of the needle Jews in Palestine.
They will go after us all for saying, hmm, the State of Israel is a Cancer, and all cancers must be eradicated.
Now now, how much hate does the average settler/land taker/home wrecker in Isra-Hell have?
https://paulokirk.substack.com/p/saying-the-state-of-israel-should
+--+
Beyond Hope, Cindy. Bush and Obama, Kissinger and ALL the presidents and ALL the presidents' men, and who owns the media? Who owns Hollywood? There you have it.
But no matter what environmentalists do, our best efforts are insufficient. We’re losing badly, on every front. Those in power are hell-bent on destroying the planet, and most people don’t care.
Frankly, I don’t have much hope. But I think that’s a good thing. Hope is what keeps us chained to the system, the conglomerate of people and ideas and ideals that is causing the destruction of the Earth.
To start, there is the false hope that suddenly somehow the system may inexplicably change. Or technology will save us. Or the Great Mother. Or beings from Alpha Centauri. Or Jesus Christ. Or Santa Claus. All of these false hopes lead to inaction, or at least to ineffectiveness. One reason my mother stayed with my abusive father was that there were no battered women’s shelters in the ’50s and ’60s, but another was her false hope that he would change. False hopes bind us to unlivable situations, and blind us to real possibilities.
+--+
https://orionmagazine.org/article/beyond-hope/
Derrick's great on many levels, but we need to eradicate the murderers. Sorry!
+--+
Hero: Marwa Osman, PhD, an accomplished Assistant Professor in Media Studies and a Producer/Presenter at Press TV. In this LIVE STREAM, we explore her insights on media, geopolitics, and more. We will dive into Lebanon's pivotal role in seeking a resolution for the Gaza conflict, gauge public sentiment regarding the significant US military presence near their coastline, and assess the strength and influence of Hezbollah.
https://www.youtube.com/live/01RTQGpczzs?si=oChCrEdydANoV9el
+--+
You have to take out this genocide joint, Isra-Hell!
From today:
https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/how-not-to-relativize-the-holocaust?publication_id=298057&post_id=138444413&isFreemail=false&r=102on
What a fraud. Does anyone recall seeing her in a "personal" video during the campaign singing "Imagine," with her husband (I think).
Tulsi was always kind of lousy, she just clung to Bernie Sanders and avoided any criticism