Tulsi Gabbard will win the Democratic nomination in 2020.

[Maxwell]

David Duke says Gabbard for Secretary of State!

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

David Duke says Gabbard for Secretary of State!

LOL

[Saint Milei]

Gabbard is the heir to Kucinich.

[Confused Democrat]

David Duke says Gabbard for Secretary of State!

You're crazy if you think I'm reading anything written by David Duke lol.

[publicunofficial]

Gabbard is the heir to Kucinich.

This is absolutely right.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm still surprised by how active the runtulsirun Facebook page is.  Looks like they just came out with a new logo:

[JA]

I'm still surprised by how active the runtulsirun Facebook page is.  Looks like they just came out with a new logo:

Please god, no. I'd absolutely hate not being able to vote for the Democrat against Trump.

[SWE]

I get really confused by some people on this message board. I'm a registered Independent but I'll be supporting the nominee with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump,

It doesn't really count as defeating Donald Trump unless the candidate who beats him is actually different from him.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm still surprised by how active the runtulsirun Facebook page is.  Looks like they just came out with a new logo:

Probably funded by Russian intelligence.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

She opposed gay marriage at one point in her life.  But Democrats stood by Clinton and Obama, so I doubt they'll care much.

[Confused Democrat]

I get really confused by some people on this message board. I'm a registered Independent but I'll be supporting the nominee with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump,

It doesn't really count as defeating Donald Trump unless the candidate who beats him is actually different from him.

You're out of your mind if you think Trump and Tulsi are the same.

[BuckeyeNut]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

Incredible war hawk.

[GoTfan]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

Incredible war hawk.

Supports universal healthcare, is anti-TPP, wants to toughen up on Wall Street and so on.

In other words, she's the antithesis of everything the Booker crowd wants.

Sure, there are areas to disagree with her on, but at least make it genuine. She's not an over-the-top war hawk. Heck, Obama's got what, 7 wars going on now? Plus, she's said herself she wants to put an end to wars of regime change, something Hillary has voted for in the past.

At least make your disagreements with her genuine instead of lining up fake attacks.

[Lief 🗽]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

She's a big fan of Putin and Assad.

[JA]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

Incredible war hawk.

Supports universal healthcare, is anti-TPP, wants to toughen up on Wall Street and so on.

In other words, she's the antithesis of everything the Booker crowd wants.

Sure, there are areas to disagree with her on, but at least make it genuine. She's not an over-the-top war hawk. Heck, Obama's got what, 7 wars going on now? Plus, she's said herself she wants to put an end to wars of regime change, something Hillary has voted for in the past.

At least make your disagreements with her genuine instead of lining up fake attacks.

Adopting rhetoric on Islam and terrorism that's aligned with the Breitbart crowd, even to the right of the Bush administration, isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Aligning yourself with the RT/Breitbart/Putin/Assad/Trump side on Middle East matters isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Sorry, but I'll take a Wall Street backed Corey Booker over this Russophile Islamophobe any day.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Gabbard is a strange specimen, the a scion of the sort of oddball dynasty that could only really exist in Hawaiian politics. She has a few glaring issues: almost certainly the candidate with the most baggage, unless Cuomo runs for some stupid reason; she is very insincere and choreographed in her motives (not really something you could accuse Sanders of being) and she is probably the most likely to end up going down Park Geun-Hye style.

And yes, the concern trolling to Fox about Obama being soft on terror, suggesting there is no non-theological cause at all behind Islamist terror, attacking seemingly benign House Resolutions against communalist violence in India, the RSS links - I would be wary, is all.

[SWE]

I get really confused by some people on this message board. I'm a registered Independent but I'll be supporting the nominee with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump,

It doesn't really count as defeating Donald Trump unless the candidate who beats him is actually different from him.

You're out of your mind if you think Trump and Tulsi are the same.

Oh, I'm sure they have some minor managerial disagreements over inconsequential bullsh**t like what the exact tax rates should be or whatever, but at the end of the day, a gulag is a gulag.

[Lief 🗽]

I get really confused by some people on this message board. I'm a registered Independent but I'll be supporting the nominee with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump,

It doesn't really count as defeating Donald Trump unless the candidate who beats him is actually different from him.

You're out of your mind if you think Trump and Tulsi are the same.

Oh, I'm sure they have some minor managerial disagreements over inconsequential bullsh**t like what the exact tax rates should be or whatever, but at the end of the day, a gulag is a gulag.

"All Muslims now live in camps, but at least President Gabbard raised the top marginal tax rate to 36.5%. FF! "

[JA]

I get really confused by some people on this message board. I'm a registered Independent but I'll be supporting the nominee with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump,

It doesn't really count as defeating Donald Trump unless the candidate who beats him is actually different from him.

You're out of your mind if you think Trump and Tulsi are the same.

Oh, I'm sure they have some minor managerial disagreements over inconsequential bullsh**t like what the exact tax rates should be or whatever, but at the end of the day, a gulag is a gulag.

"All Muslims now live in camps, but at least President Gabbard raised the top marginal tax rate to 36.5%. FF! "

That's a tad dramatic, but I can't deny I generally concur with your sentiments.

[Lord Halifax]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

Incredible war hawk.

Supports universal healthcare, is anti-TPP, wants to toughen up on Wall Street and so on.

In other words, she's the antithesis of everything the Booker crowd wants.

Sure, there are areas to disagree with her on, but at least make it genuine. She's not an over-the-top war hawk. Heck, Obama's got what, 7 wars going on now? Plus, she's said herself she wants to put an end to wars of regime change, something Hillary has voted for in the past.

At least make your disagreements with her genuine instead of lining up fake attacks.

Adopting rhetoric on Islam and terrorism that's aligned with the Breitbart crowd, even to the right of the Bush administration, isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Aligning yourself with the RT/Breitbart/Putin/Assad/Trump side on Middle East matters isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Sorry, but I'll take a Wall Street backed Corey Booker over this Russophile Islamophobe any day.

Why? Economic policy matters in everyday life. Booker would harm more people than Gabbard.

[Blair]

Worth noting she voted against a motion condemning Russia's bombing of Syria; and was one of only 4 house members to do so (or some stupidly small number)

[JA]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

Incredible war hawk.

Supports universal healthcare, is anti-TPP, wants to toughen up on Wall Street and so on.

In other words, she's the antithesis of everything the Booker crowd wants.

Sure, there are areas to disagree with her on, but at least make it genuine. She's not an over-the-top war hawk. Heck, Obama's got what, 7 wars going on now? Plus, she's said herself she wants to put an end to wars of regime change, something Hillary has voted for in the past.

At least make your disagreements with her genuine instead of lining up fake attacks.

Adopting rhetoric on Islam and terrorism that's aligned with the Breitbart crowd, even to the right of the Bush administration, isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Aligning yourself with the RT/Breitbart/Putin/Assad/Trump side on Middle East matters isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Sorry, but I'll take a Wall Street backed Corey Booker over this Russophile Islamophobe any day.

Why? Economic policy matters in everyday life. Booker would harm more people than Gabbard.

Because there's more to life than material interests. But what you're saying is that so long as the candidate is right on economic matters and only targets a politicaly  insignificant and small minority, then who cares, right? Sorry, but not everyone has the privilege to view the world that way.

[Maxwell]

There's absolutely no guarantee that Gabbard would even be better on economic issues than Booker - Gabbard gets her money from SHELDON ADELSON, and has voted with him based on that funding.

Gabbard has fooled so many people by affiliating with Bernie Sanders, it really was a genius move politically.

[JA]

Worth noting she voted against a motion condemning Russia's bombing of Syria; and was one of only 4 house members to do so (or some stupidly small number)

Who cares? Toeing the RT line on foreign policy and spouting Breitbart rhetoric about Islam is perfectly acceptable to the left today so long as you endorsed Sanders and are supposedly economic populists.