October 30, 2019

"Hillary Clinton emerged recently to claim, with no basis in fact, that I am being 'groomed' by the Russian government to undermine America...."

"I'm running for president to undo Mrs. Clinton's failed legacy. From Iraq to Libya to Syria, her record is replete with foreign-policy catastrophes. It's a primary reason why I resigned as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders. Mrs. Clinton and the powerful media and political network she built up over decades have never forgiven this slight.... Those who are indebted to the war machine and the overreaching intelligence agencies, as well as their cheerleaders in the media, are determined to take me down because they know they can't control me. I'm directly challenging their power.... Democratic candidates adhere to [Hillary Clinton's] doctrine of acting as the world's police, using the tools of war to overthrow governments we don't like, wasting taxpayer dollars, costing American lives, causing suffering and destruction abroad, and undermining America's security.... Only when we recognize the failings of the past -- embodied by Mrs. Clinton and her minions in the media -- can we move forward to a future of peace, dignity, transparency and aloha."

Writes Tulsi Gabbard in "I Can Defeat Trump and The Clinton Doctrine" (Wall Street Journal).

She's less of a contrast to Trump... but that could be a good thing. Why do the Democrats want a candidate who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?

135 comments:

Tom said...

I guess I’m a Russian Agent because this the exact reason I didn’t vote for Clinton. I 1000% with Tulsi’s foreign policy position. Her domestic left-wing policies?! Yeah, not to much.

Kevin said...

That’s nice Tulsi, but we already have a president who isn’t indebted to the war machine.

“I’m like him but I’m not Trump” isn’t going to get you very far in the general.

It might set you up well for 2024, however.

Dave Begley said...

Yes, Mrs. Clinton is a failure. A rich failure, but a failure nonetheless.

She's despised by half the country and she should be in jail. She's sick, old and her husband cheats on her with impunity. She needs to go away.

readering said...

Great. As long as she does not end up running as independent after all that. Time will tell. Of course if she does not Clinton may claim credit.

Long primary season. Nice diversion.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I could vote for Tulsi, mainly because she is a surfer. I have a soft spot for surfers.

DarkHelmet said...

I want to like Tulsi, but she endorsed Bernie Sanders? Whoa. Serious, serious failure of judgment. That disqualifies her, as far as I'm concerned.

Michael McNeil said...

Truthdig.com — apparently a generally left-wing anti-war site — has an interesting article (by a Major Danny Sjursen, U.S. Army Ret. — who has otherwise written for such sites as The Nation) “Democrats have no answer for Trump's anti-war posture,” arguing that Trump is quite likely to win the forthcoming 2020 election as a result of the Democrats' complete failure in this regard.

Earnest Prole said...

It’s still astounding to me that the Wellesley valedictorian chick in the striped pants would become the leading foreign-policy neoconservative of the Democratic Party. Once a moralist always a moralist, I guess.

Wince said...

Reminds me of Steve McGarrett's closing at the end of each Five-0 episode.

"Be here, aloha."

tcrosse said...

Trump suffers from aloha deficiency.

tim in vermont said...

"Why do the Democrats want a candidate who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?”

Because they live by pretzel logic and all they really care about is power and control of the graft.

Although as to what Tulsi wrote, hear hear!

JPS said...

Before we go any further: I'd like some clarity as to whether it is / is not OK to suggest that an Army officer and decorated veteran has divided loyalties, and is perhaps pushing the interests of another country over our own.

I'm guessing we have to judge case-by-case, depending on which party we belong to and which party it helps.

Rory said...

The Democrats I talk to always say stuff like Clinton has no support anymore or can't win the nomination or is in the past, but I never hear that they would vote against her or that it was a massive mistake to ever get involved with her. Is there even a private acceptance of that?

tim in vermont said...

It’s really nobody’s business where Bill Clinton finds his sexual solace as long as he’s not abusing elected or other office to do it.

Kevin said...

Only when we recognize the failings of the past -- embodied by Mrs. Clinton and her minions in the media -- can we move forward to a future of peace, dignity, transparency and aloha."

In parts of the country it’s already happening.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Allahpundit said ...
They’re going to acquit him on grounds that what he did was bad but ultimately not an impeachable “high crime or misdemeanor.” Portman and Alexander are already pushing that line. The rest will come around soon.


Trump, who is already an unusually weak president, will be further weakened by his own party who are unwilling to conduct a full-throated defense or clean house.

mccullough said...

Obama was President. Not Hillary. That Obama appointed Hillary Sec of State and listened to anything she said shows what a fool and lightweight he was.

Tulsi should place the blame where it belongs. On Obama.

BarrySanders20 said...

She is right about the intervention stuff. But get a grip, Tulsi. It's not all about you.

rehajm said...

Perhaps lefties don’t really care about the things they care about?

Tulsi is correct to direct ire at Clintons for the things she says the Clintons ate about. Mahalo.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Hillary and her corrupt surrogates are doing all they can behind the scenes to destroy Tulsi.
They are already running someone to challenge Tulsi in Hawaii. The entire Russian collusion hoax - was ALL for Hillary.

That's how Hillary rolls with other democrats who don't fall in line and kiss her ring. Imagine what Hillary will do to you?

Who killed Seth Rich?

Who killed Jeffrey Epstein?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The house cleaning is all on the corrupt left, ARM. All of it. The deep state needs a purge. It all begins and ends with the queen of corruption.

HILLARY

rcocean said...

Just what a Russian Asset *would* say. Putin is pulling her strings. He's everywhere. Even under your bed.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The democrats are the party of money, power and ultimate greed. If they can grift off of a foreign power (ala Biden family/Clinton Family Foundation fake chairty) they will do so like the mob. do not get in their way.

Michael K said...


Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I could vote for Tulsi, mainly because she is a surfer. I have a soft spot for surfers.


Blasey Ford is a surfer, flying all over the world to find good waves.

I guess that must be why you bought her lies.

Wince said...

Have to admit thinking about Tulsi Gabbard being "groomed" is kind of a turn-on.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

It's too bad Obama kept Hillary alive and gave her so much power. He allowed her Private Server for Clinton-Cash to operate and did nothing to stop it. Imagine a world where Hillary Clinton is actually cast into the pit of irrelevancy.

Strozk you, Hillary.

n.n said...

Obama was President. Not Hillary.

Is it plausible that Obama voted present for 32 trimesters?

rcocean said...

The D's were put in a box with MAGA and Trump's "America First". The couldn't come back and say: "Hell, no we the World first, America Second". So, they came up with Trump is Russian spy. Trump doesn't want America First, he's just doing what Putin wants. And now its Tulsi doesn't like Hillary - so SHE's a Russian Spy. Even when people prove the charge is absurd and false, they are STILL on the defensive.

What's the old joke. a country pol calls his opponent a "pig fucker" and his aides are scandalized. And the joke's punch line is: "Sure he's not pig-fucker, but he'll have a hell of a time proving it".

tim in vermont said...

ARM, as long as you are going to keep posting cut and pastes from people who publicly declared that they closed their minds three years ago, be a good sport and throw in some excerpts from The Bulwark. It would really round out your shtick.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Be nice if you so-called morally superior democrats who hate Trump so much - would tell Hillary to f* off.
It's funny how you don't do it. Cowards.

AllenS said...

Not only is Trump not indebted to the war machine, he also owes nothing to the swamp (government). Unlike Crooked Hillary.

Trump 2020!

Jupiter said...

"Why do the Democrats want a candidate who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?"

Samantha Power, a member of Obama's coven of foreign policy witches, has explained that America's immense military power gives us a "duty to protect" citizens of other nations from the vermin who govern them. The use of the American military to enforce the dictates of the UN is a central component of the globalist strategy.

tim in vermont said...

You can’t make the graft really flow until you have military involvement. I am sure that Obama’s misadventures in both Syria and Libya had to do with oil fields. Where the big money is.

Nonapod said...

Why do the Democrats want a candidate who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?

To be fair, I don't believe most actual Democrat voters really want military interventionism and adventurism. But the Dems in power sure do. I think since the end of the cold war both parties have had their elected and unelected leadership taken over by war lovers. Also, I think an entire class of career bureaucrat foreign policy "experts" have emerged that have developed a sort of conventional wisdom of foreverwar.

The reasons that all this has occured are complex. There's obvious reasons, the old "military idustustrial complex" problem, like Senators and Congress critters wanting money from defense contracts for their districts or whatever. And there's always general careerism. There's people who have spent their entire career and espousing particular viewpoints and building reputations that are naturally going to resist anything that contravenes those ideas. Then of course there's the main stream media.

But unfortunately I also think many Democrats probably dislike Trump far more than they dislike military adventurism. So it puts them in uncomfortable position.

MadisonMan said...

Running against Clinton is good for the country, but not necessarily good for a Democratic Candidate.

jaydub said...

ARM: "Trump, who is already an unusually weak president...."

Who said ARM is full of left wing gibberish and delusional?

Oh, never mind. That was me.

Ken B said...

What we really need in a president: Aloha. Because presidents from Hawaii never invade.

hombre said...

Tulsi’s announcement, “I am not a swamprat or a leftmedia toady,” spells her end as a Democrat pol.

Rick said...

Trump, who is already an unusually weak president, will be further weakened by his own party who are unwilling to conduct a full-throated defense or clean house.

So six more years of Americans not being micromanaged by incompetent apparatchiks.

Where do we sign up? I can't get on this list fast enough.

n.n said...

Social justice adventurism, democratic gerrymandering, and redistributive change, with personal animus frosting.

rehajm said...

Though it probably won’t matter I agree that it may be a good thing. There’s gotta be Democrats out there wondering why they’re supposed to hate Trump’s policy...Heh, who am I kidding?

Anonymous said...

She's less of a contrast to Trump... but that could be a good thing. Why do the Democrats want a candidate who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?

Rhetorical question, right?

I'm told that there are people out there who prefer candidates who come across as "normal and practical and realistic", who represent "Stability. Good sense. Regularity". And apparently to those people a candidate (like, say, Hillary Clinton) "who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like" fills that bill adequately, relative to some impractical and unrealistic type who campaigns on a platform of reduced interventionism.

Go figure.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Strozk - that sounds Russian.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary inherited the huge political machine, complete with press embeds, as shown by Wikileaks. Tulsi has no such machine, so as much sense as she makes on this issue, at least, it’s a tree falling in some remote forest.

"Why do the Democrats want a candidate who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?”

It’s funny that a phrase like “knots of contradiction” would appear in Freder’s writing. It can’t be that such an image would arise in his mind because he is struggling with that very problem?

narciso said...

she's all over the place, she was for the withdrawal from Syria, and then was against it, she was for and against gitmo, she wanted back in the iran deal, after abquaiq, she has a germ of a point about some Salafist factions supported in Syria in yemen, but then trusts iran's proxies implicitly, the ones that have taken a pasting in cairo and Baghdad recently,

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

New rules are likely to make the impeachment proceedings more transparent—depriving critics of their chief argument.

Levi Starks said...

Definitely sounds like the Democratic version of DJT.
Would she get thrown under the bus the same way he has?

Bob Boyd said...

Tulsi is cute and fun-loving, but connected to Trump, so she must go to hell.

Bill Peschel said...

"The house cleaning is all on the corrupt left, ARM. All of it. The deep state needs a purge. It all begins and ends with the queen of corruption."

I would put into that house cleaning the GOPers who went along with the scams because they benefited just as much. They liked being the Washington Generals against the Globetrotters (which is unfortunate, since the Globetrotters are competent and wonderful entertainers and don't deserve being slimed).

tim in vermont said...

Here is some delusion from The Bulwark, written by some child apparently:

Donald Trump changed that.

He ran against every principle that I, and virtually every other Republican, held dear. His character was flawed. His foreign policy was Obama 2.0 but open about intending to commit human rights violations and war crimes. He was against free trade. He ran against cutting entitlements. The list goes on—and never stops!


Not disconnected from reality at all! Although the last two, I will give him. Trump is really a centrist Democrat!

n.n said...

Trump is not anti-war, which is a credible choice within a limited scope (e.g. self-defense). He is anti-every other reason that we have intervened, destabilized, and redistributed with military, intelligence, and social justice assets.

mtrobertslaw said...

Hillary will rue the day she picked a fight with Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi will respond to her attacks by calling her out in language that no man could get away with in speaking to a woman.

If Hillary decides to run as a candidate for president, Tulsi will destroy her. She will continue to frame Clinton as a deranged warmonger who feels alive only when she is ordering men to their inevitable deaths in battle. Left unsaid, but implied, will be a psychological explanation that the cause of this madness is simply that Hillary hates men. This mode of attack will resonate with many, mostly men, who are already convinced she detests men and does not wish them well. The press will pursue this feud with a frenzy.

This meme will haunt Hillary until she either withdraws from the race, or is committed to a psychiatric hospital.

tcrosse said...

Obama was President. Not Hillary.

Obama has the decency to keep his trap shut. Not Hillary.

tim in vermont said...

Reports that the Russian propaganda machine has been promoting Gabbard’s presidential aspirations aren’t new. They have been circulating at least since early this year. A February 2 NBC News article reported that Gabbard had become a favorite of the same English-language news sites employed by Russia to interfere with the 2016 election: - The Bulwark

So wait a minute... publishing Russia’s take on the news in English is election interference? Holeee shit!

mockturtle said...

Tulsi might be a promising candidate for 2024 but she's going to have to work on her domestic policies. Supporting a Socialist is a deal breaker for me.

narciso said...

she just makes her arguments in the most ham handed way:


https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/what-baghdadis-death-tells-us-about-real-terror-daniel-greenfield/

Robert Cook said...

"Why do the Democrats want a candidate who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?"

This is what both parties want, and what American has always done. It is our way of asserting our global dominance. We're certainly not maintaining military bases in countries around the world for their protection!

Lucid-Ideas said...

Roses are red
Tulsi is Blue
I love you Tulsi
You my boo

Hillary is evil
And this may sound crass
I love your mind Tulsi
And respect your toned ass

rhhardin said...

She's going for the women's vote. None of them will spot it.

Fernandinande said...

Hillary Clinton emerged ...

Did she see her shadow?

Ray - SoCal said...

The reason that Tulsi is not running for re-election is the Democratic establishment, including 3 former governors, support her opponent.

Tulsi’s strategy may have more to do with 2024. If the current Democratic establish crashes in 2020 with a GOP sweep, it opens the 2024 for Tulsi, to do a Bill Clinton, and run more to the center.

Lucid-Ideas said...

During the war
I suffered some concussions
In spite of all the gore
I knew it was the Russians
And here they are I see
Grooming and cajoling
Another sleeper candidate
Tulsi from Hawaii

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

She can’t beat Trump but I can certainly see why the Donks think she made might help him. So, in the internal logic of the deranged, the Russian asset thing makes sense. Having Hillary drunkenly blurt it out, not so much.

eric said...

I'm not a Tulsi fan. Her policy positions suck and I'd not vote for her.

But, she's a rare source of reason among an insane group of Democrats.

Sebastian said...

"Those who are indebted to the war machine and the overreaching intelligence agencies, as well as their cheerleaders in the media, are determined to take me down because they know they can't control me. I'm directly challenging their power"

As does Trump. They have been trying to take Trump down, and the impeachment circus is another maneuver in that effort. So yes: less of a contrast.

"Why do the Democrats want a candidate who advocates our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?"

They want a candidate who beats Trump. They don't care about overthrowing governments or not. As the Universal Theory of Progressive Instrumentalism implies, their "ideas" are tools: strictly to be used in the quest for power, entirely discardable. Since Trump in effect coopted some of their old notions (no more crazy wars! fair, not free trade!), Dems have been reduced to changing what they believed, especially what the left believed, professed to believe, until the day before yesterday.

Their hatred of Trump and of us is stronger than any ideological conviction.

Lucid-Ideas said...

The Russians! The Russians! The Russians!ere

Bob Boyd said...

If Putin's agenda is to sow discord, division and disruption in order to weaken our nation, who's agenda over the last three years has been more pleasing to Putin, Trump's or the Democrat Party's?

NCMoss said...

It's only words; Tulsi could garner some credibility from her recent insight about the Clinton's (and the party who enables them) by going independent.

bbkingfish said...

Our acting as the world police has been bi-partisan American foreign policy since the end of WWII. It is facile, and incorrect, to imply that this is a "Democrat" policy.

I happen to ascribe to the "realist" perspective of U.S. foreign policy, featuring a greater emphasis on diplomacy, and less on knee-jerk military intervention. I would find Gabbard more convincing if she advocated drawdown of U.S. troop levels around the world, along with a big decrease in military budgets, reduced reliance (and spending) on military contractors, closing of a great many of our 800 military installations on foreign soil, and excessive spending on weapons developments that are boondoggles executed for the benefit of defense contractors and and the revolving door of generals who sit on their boards.

I have heard her advocate for none of these things, which are necessary components of our reducing our tendency to entangle ourselves in "forever" wars overseas. If we continue printing money to keep expanding our bloated standing military, it is a fact borne out by history that our generals and politicians will find excuses to use it.

So far, what I have seen from Gabbard suggests that she is using "no more wars" as nothing more than a slogan. This has been a successful tactic of our current president, who has quietly increased troop levels in the Middle East while loudly proclaiming his intent to do the opposite (the Pentagon quit providing public updates of ME troop levels in 2017). Likewise, his budgets have included the standard huge increases in military and military-related spending, and are projected to continue doing so in the future.

Not only Gabbard and Trump, but I hear no other American politician advocating for any of these things, except maybe Amash and Sestak. It strikes me as no accident that both of them have been branded "crazy" by their respective parties.

George F. Kennan said late in his life that the Pentagon has been running U.S. foreign policy since 1947, and I don't see how anyone can disagree. The last five presidents have taken office promising a lower profile foreign policy with an emphasis on diplomacy, and very quickly performed an about-face. Slavishness to the military/intelligence establishment has been a bi-partisan phenomenon, it seems clear to me.





Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Nobody talks about the HAUL the Clinton duo made off of Russia over the years.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Ok, this needs to be said...

I know it's a long shot for Tulsi to ACTUALLY be president of the USA...

But if she was able to pull it off...

Could we honestly not say that there's never been a cuter President?

I mean really. What a smoking crossfit fox for President! Holy Cow!

I would totally apply to the Secret Service for Body Detail...if you know what I mean;)

Tulsi 2020, for President of Cute!

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Tulsi cannot stand Trump. But she is willing to speak the truth about Hillary.

A big No No inside the leftwing corruption machine where Hillary is top cat.

Ann Althouse said...

Why didn't Obama say "aloha"?

Ann Althouse said...

Please don't read my question as birtherist.

Yancey Ward said...

I have written it before, but if Trump came out in full throated support of cute puppies, the talking heads in the media and their Democrat masters in D.C. would come out against them.

Like her or hate her, Gabbard at least doesn't betray the things in which she believes just because Trump might support some of them, too.

Yancey Ward said...

Colored lights can hypnotize
Sparkle someone elses eyes

tim in vermont said...

"Our acting as the world police has been bi-partisan American foreign policy since the end of WWII. It is facile, and incorrect, to imply that this is a "Democrat" policy.”

No, since the Kennedy Administration. Eisenhower told the French and the British to sod off when they tried to draw us into their colonial wars. Trump is trying to take us back to those halcyon days when POTUS didn’t mean de facto emperor.

Francisco D said...

Our acting as the world police has been bi-partisan American foreign policy since the end of WWII. It is facile, and incorrect, to imply that this is a "Democrat" policy.

I think that is a generally true statement, but note that Democrats portray themselves as anti-war when the POTUS is Republican. IMHO, the Democrat Media complex is opportunistic and has no sincere foreign policy views.

tim in vermont said...

I think Tulsi just said “OK, Boomer” to Hillary!

Earnest Prole said...

What a smoking crossfit fox for President! Holy Cow!

She’s draggin’ the whole nine yards in that wagon.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

It’s funny that the same politician, Hillary, who started “birtherism” as a smear of Obama is using a similar kind of smear against Tulsi. Or maybe Obama started it when he claimed to be Kenyan in his book promotion material. I can never keep this stuff straight.

Hillary should just make an instagram channel where she can elegantly photograph various cocktails she is consuming in various settings that her riches won in politics have taken her. I am sure it would be a big hit among Democrats who still defend her.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"Please don't read my question as birtherist"

It'd be funnier if it was, in a mocking self-deprecating kind of way. Don't know if you do that, though.

gilbar said...

Yancey Ward said...
I have written it before, but if Trump came out in full throated support of cute puppies, the talking heads in the media and their Democrat masters in D.C. would come out against them.


"This Bestiality, this Sick Love (let's call it what it is; LUST) for dogs; is Clearly intended as an intentional INSULT of the TRUE AMERICANS, the followers of Islam; THE Religion of Peace". Only Deplorable SCUM would cover themselves with the fleas of Dog Love" -Washington Post; the next day

0_0 said...

Aristotle might be a historical Beloved Commenter, but the sperg using Aristotle's image is not.

Qwinn said...

Y'know, speaking of foreign interference in elections, did the Left ever even *attempt* to justify Obama turning off basic default credit card verification on donations, enabling anyone from any country anywhere to donate to him without restriction or accountability? Not just in 2008 but 2012 as well?

Funny how that blatant crime never resulted in drama.

0_0 said...

Aristotle might be a historical Beloved Commenter, but the sperg using Aristotle's image is not.

Michael K said...

bbkingfish is now a defense expert.

This has been a successful tactic of our current president, who has quietly increased troop levels in the Middle East while loudly proclaiming his intent to do the opposite (the Pentagon quit providing public updates of ME troop levels in 2017). Likewise, his budgets have included the standard huge increases in military and military-related spending, and are projected to continue doing so in the future.


I assume you were correcting the Democrats who were screaming about withdrawing 50 troops from the Syrian frontier.

The "huge" increases in spending is to recover from the Democrat tactic under Obama to starve the military and feed the domestic entitlement maw, like Obamacare and its guarantees to insurance companies.

No doubt you have forgotten "sequestration."

bagoh20 said...

She would make a fine and very successful conservative, but she's just too dumb. Anybody who still thinks socialism is a good idea is an idiot. I know she's intelligent, and capable, but still an idiot.

Lurker21 said...

Only when we recognize the failings of the past -- embodied by Mrs. Clinton and her minions in the media -- can we move forward to a future of peace, dignity, transparency and aloha.

Is that "aloha" like the "Hel-lo?" that some people say to mean "wake up!" or "get real!"?

What I dig, though, is the "minions."

maha said...

Precisely which of the current Democratic candidates advocate our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like? None that I've noticed. And I don't know if you got the memo, but Hillary Clinton isn't running this time.

My name goes here. said...

I realize that I am on the fringe when I say I think Hillary will run.

If I wanted to further my delusion I would look at proxy events that would precede Hillary joining the campaign.

Getting rid of Gabbard would be one of those things.

All this, IMHO.

Howard said...

Tulsi is a tough chick and a vixen. Is she a species beyond the Hot/Crazy Matrix?

Howard said...

Why do I keep thinking that Tulsi is from Oklahoma?

Anonymous said...

Skylark: I think Tulsi just said “OK, Boomer” to Hillary!

Lol.

tim in vermont said...

Schiff has been accused of witness tampering. I first read it as “whiteness tampering” and thought he was in real trouble.

Bay Area Guy said...

Tulsi has some silly bad ideas on the domestic front.

But, on foreign policy, she basically has adopted Sen. Rand Paul's view that we should not send our beloved military troops overseas in a messy war, unless it is absolutely necessary, and vital to our National interests. Basically, she (and Paul) are where the American people are. Let's not make the same mistake as the powerful Roman empire, by stretching too thin across the globe, and letting our home base rot from within.

If you add this, to Tulsi's righteous lambasting of Miss Hillary and her Deep State "pay to play" allies, ya gotta give the gal credit. She's got guts. She is rebuking the Democrat Party establishment, which deserves a good rebuking.

So, Yes, I am a fan of Tulsi. Wouldn't vote for her against Trump, but will vote for her in the primaries.

Drago said...

ARM: "Trump, who is already an unusually weak president, will be further weakened by his own party who are unwilling to conduct a full-throated defense or clean house."

LOLOLOLOL

Trump has higher approval ratings at this point in his Presidency than Obambi did.

Trump has higher party approval at this point in his Presidency than Obambi did.

Trump has delivered the most conservative governance in 3 generations.

Trump has flipped and continues to retain support from formerly blue collar democrats across the entire industrial midwest and all battleground states.

ARM continues his delusional posting while constantly referring back to the same 15 or so NeverTrump fake conservatives who have been outed by Trump!

Sounds like a successful strategy ARM! Keep it up.

And don't be afraid to keep lecturing the deplorables on how bad things are right now. They will, like, totally believe you dude.

Totally.

mockturtle said...

Drago, ARM is a troll. He probably doesn't even believe the crap he writes. He just want to elicit reactions.

traditionalguy said...

Why? Follow the money. Watch it come from the traditional World rulers favorites that are using two Government protected rackets: the trafficking Drugs and enslaved adults and children.

Add to that a myriad of Private Foundations slush funds created all over the world to launder those profits, and then add in the PAX AMERICANA Foreign Aid grants used to fund CIA operations and pay DC its kick backs.

If Tulsi will help point them out, the Trumpistas will arrest them.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Be sure to watch the video at the link.

Tulsi not only wipes out Hillary - she wipes out the Hillary supporting corrupt Media.
I'm looking at you Joy Behar - useful idiot.

Anthony said...

Blogger Wince said...
Have to admit thinking about Tulsi Gabbard being "groomed" is kind of a turn-on.


*immediately thinking of Katie Hill. . . . . .bad me.*

Big Mike said...

Tulsi’s support for “Medicare for All” is front and center on her website. So she wants a healthcare system where demand for services goes up at least 10% but reimbursements to hospitals and doctors goes down 20% and paperwork requirements go through the roof. And she thinks we will still even have a healthcare system when she’s through!

Skippy Tisdale said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
"New rules are likely to make the impeachment proceedings more transparent—depriving critics of their chief argument."

No, the chief argument is that this is all political bullshit, which is preventing Congress from solving the country's problems.

But thanks for playing.

tim in vermont said...

"Precisely which of the current Democratic candidates advocate our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?”

So you missed all of the sturm und drang when Trump announced that he was pulling troops out of Syria?

tommyesq said...

Could this be a false flag operation - the whole thing an elaborate DNC ruse to make Tulsi look every bit as much the brave and daring outsider as Trump did in 2015-16?

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tommyesq said...

Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I could vote for Tulsi, mainly because she is a surfer. I have a soft spot for surfers.


A little blue pill could help out with that "soft spot..."

tim in vermont said...

"Precisely which of the current Democratic candidates advocate our acting as the world's police and overthrowing governments we don't like?”

Yeah, that was obvious when they all jumped in in Tulsi’s defense against those bullshit charges by Hillary. Hillary has no power left!

That was sarcasm. The Democrats are still afraid of Hillary, she is a potent force in your party. She has the Clinton Foundation with which she can award comfy sinecures to loyal apparatchiks, people throughout the press. You may be in denial about Hillary’s influence in the Democratic Party, but the other candidates are not.

tim in vermont said...

ARM is like Tokyo Rose. She didn’t care what sailors shouted at the radio, her job was to do her best to lower morale. It didn’t work for her either.

tim in vermont said...

"Aristotle might be a historical Beloved Commenter, but the sperg using Aristotle's image is not.”

I know, I now have a mental image of Aristotle that he was, as it was put in The Princess Bride, a “moron.”

Big Mike said...

Why do I keep thinking that Tulsi is from Oklahoma?

Because you’re an educated fool?

Rick said...

ARM is a troll.

It's no coincidence he starting posting again exactly when Inga gave up her FrankM sockpuppet.

Beasts of England said...

Ignoring most of her political positions, Tulsi is all that and a can of Spam. She serves in the military, surfs, prolly wears a lot of yoga pants, and has a very pleasing voice. She’s also one tough babe and very bright. Did I mention her electric smile? And, as I pre-denounce myself, you know that she’s a super freak... Meow, sugar britches!! 😎

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

ARM is ARM. He's a slightly more nimble garage mahal without the mad photography skills. Plus he's the only man to ever have had a real-time nervous breakdown on the Internet. But he isn't a troll and I'd miss him if he wasn't gracing us with his presence.
As a co-worker once observed, "I like shopping at Wal-Mart. It makes me feel smart and pretty."

Lucid-Ideas said...

I just realized that Tulsi and I are the same age! Did you know she's only 38?

And even better, I outranked her when I was discharged, but Tulsi if you're reading this that doesn't mean I'll make you salute me in the morning.

Also, I've discussed this with the gf and I think we'd make quite the attractive throuple...way way better than that whole Katie Hill Kalamity.

I know your married. I'm involved too. There's no reason you can't lose the hero and get with the zero! I'm also a Hindu, although I'm currently not practicing. I'm willing to consider restarting though...for the right reason.

Michael said...

I'm so old I remember when Democrats were anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-regime change.

2008 feels like a millennia ago.

Bilwick said...

Sometimes I visit the leftist blogs and commit the sin of pointing out facts and making rational rebuttals of their stupidity. The foaming-at-the-mouth response make ARM and garage mahal look like the reasonable man ARM likes to pose as.

ThunderChick said...

Obama has the decency to keep his trap shut. Not Hillary

Obama may be keeping his trap shut publicly, but I'm sure he is behind the scenes trying to take Trump out. He was knee deep in the Russian Collusion hoax against Trump. See testimony of James Clapper. Obama is a thin-skinned, arrogant narcissist who takes any criticism personally. With Trump destroying his "legacy," there is no way Obama's going to let that happen without a fight.

Ann Althouse said...

“ Have to admit thinking about Tulsi Gabbard being "groomed" is kind of a turn-on.”

Oh, no! I pictured Katie Hill wielding a hairbrush!

narciso said...

now all these 'Russian bots' came from tarot card reader clint watt and jm berger, who has a little more expertise, now Chertoff (who worked for Ukrainian oligarch firtash) and general hayden and William kristol, publicizes them through the hamilton68 dashboard,

bbkingfish said...

Michael K responds to my post...

"I assume you were correcting the Democrats who were screaming about withdrawing 50 troops from the Syrian frontier."

Just like Michael K stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Cindy Sheehan and Donald Trump against the Iraq War. And really, why don't talk about all the WPPers who howled about pulling 50 troops from the Syrian frontier?

Michael, really, your snark is getting progressively weaker.

You think I don't notice you never even try to dispute any point I make? But, yet, even though I can see your gums flapping, and smell your bad breath, unfailingly, you say nothing at all. You are the kind of internet know-it-all who just can't leave a comment alone, even when you have nothing to add...or subtract.

I don't even bother to read your blather. It's so easy not to.

Gk1 said...

It's quite obvious the democrats have no answer for Trump even at this late date. Their crocodile tears for the Kurds "being abandoned" was enough to make anyones stomach turn as they couldn't give two shits about anyone when there is power at stake.

Their latest war hawk postures are only in the vain hope of peeling away enough Trump supporters. I think it was Glenn Reynolds who posited that Trump is re-calibrating a lot of post war structures from NATO to trade relations. It's just inconvenient when a democrat like Tulsi also echos the same message.

bbkingfish said...

No doubt you have forgotten "sequestration."

Yeah. And you're saying that sequestration was Obama's idea. That is a real laugh.

And you're admitting that Obama was the only president to slow the growth of defense spending in the past 70 years? All in the service of trying to make a weak point to defend your Dear Leader? That truly is rich. You, who decry the "forever wars" undercut your own arguments in service of the Don. How touching. Yeah, you are the real expert.

"In 1983, Chuck Spinney, a thirty-seven-year-old analyst in the Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, testified to Congress that the cost of the ever-more complex weapons that the military insisted on buying always grew many times faster than the overall defense budget. In consequence, planes, ships, and tanks were never replaced on a one-to-one basis, which in turn ensured that the armed forces got smaller and older. Planes, for instance, were kept in service for longer periods of time and were maintained in poor states of repair owing to their increasing complexity. As to be expected, the high command did not react favorably to these home truths. They allowed Spinney to keep his job but stopped assigning him anything of importance. He spent the rest of his career ensconced in a Pentagon office at the heart of the military-­industrial machine, pondering and probing its institutional personality. Retiring in 2003, he maintained a steady output of pungent analyses of its workings. In a 2011 essay, “The Domestic Roots of Perpetual War,” he discussed the pattern of “military belief systems and distorted financial incentives” that produced “a voracious appetite for money that is sustained by a self-­serving flood of ideological propaganda.” Delving deep into the historical details of Pentagon spending, Spinney illustrated his analyses in the form of intricate charts that not only tracked the actual dollar amounts expended but also showed how the projected budgets for various ambitious weapons-­buying plans had never materialized, at least never to the degree necessary to buy the projected number of weapons systems—­hence the shrinking forces."

Howard said...

Drago and I are getting pretty tired of all the locker room talk about Tulsi.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Tulsi is attractive. Another thing opposite of Hillary. Hillary looks like she was spawned. by something evil.

Steven said...

It's a tragedy. If only someone -- say, a powerful black woman with a doctorate in the field of international relations and who studied in Moscow itself -- had warned Hillary "Reset" Clinton and the Democrats about the Russians before 2016.

tcrosse said...

So Hillary has turned into Ma Barker.

phantommut said...

I strongly disagree with many of Tulsi's Domestic policies but I like her and I'd vote for her against Trump. If it's any of the current top three I'll vote for whatever Libertarian is on the ticket. If it's Clinton I think I'd vote Trump just to run up the numbers but I'm not sure; depends on how insane he gets.

Michael K said...

Evidence of bbkingfish dullness.

Yeah. And you're saying that sequestration was Obama's idea. That is a real laugh.

Reading would be good for you. Of course, there are big words.

Nichevo said...

bbkingfish said...
Michael K responds to my post...I don't even bother to read your blather. It's so easy not to.

Ok Boomer.

Paul Doty said...

"less of a contrast to Trump." Except for that abortion, green new deal, reparations, weapons ban, Medicare for all, citizenship for "dreamers", etc.
Yeah, pretty much the same.

Michael K said...

I'm not sure bbkingfish can read anyway. My heart is broken.

iowan2 said...

Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I could vote for Tulsi, mainly because she is a surfer. I have a soft spot for surfers.


That's strange, I have a hard spot for her soft spot. YMMV

Michael K said...

"In 1983, Chuck Spinney, a thirty-seven-year-old analyst in the Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation,

bb, I used to debate Chuck on Usenet back in the early 90s. He was adamantly against the Iraq War, which was a source of disagreement. It was probably on Hackworth's group. No blogs then. He was right about Iraq but I thought it was worthwhile to learn if Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants. They can't. We know that now.