Tulsi 2020: Anti-war Democrat says she’s running for US president

[jacob]

How that's not a crime is beyond me. That's interfering in elections. And we know it.

My guess would be that it's similar to the challenges faced by the SEC when they try to regulate the financial markets. Some strategies are so new that the laws haven't been written yet or they're written in a way that certain strategies fall through the cracks or directly take advantage of loopholes. In addition, some actions live in a gray zone and it's hard to define where the line is drawn. The porn test has the same problem.

The way the SEC handles it is similar to how I moderate the forum. It's not ideal but it's the only way. Basically if a given behavior is destructive and the person is challenged, the perp has to be able to explain how their behavior served a constructive purpose. If they can not, they're guilty, retroactively.

This is not how the legal system normally works... but I don't see any alternative when bad actors are deliberately gaming the [legal] system.

[IlliniDave]

Probably just some three-hop arm of the Democrat machine narrowing the field, something they only had to do to one candidate last time.

Regarding legality, unless it's a foreign group, don't think it much matters. If lying/misleading about a candidate was a crime 2/3 of elected officials in the country would be in jail (either lying about themselves or their opponents), and an equal two thirds of the people they beat in elections.

[fiby41]

I support Tulsi, I am in Moscow, but I am not a bot.

[jennypenny]

All Dems had to do to win in 2020 was (1) not look like they're boxing any candidates out and (2) not act crazy, and so far they are struggling with both of those. I think the candidate free-for-all is not just a sign of the political times but shows weak leadership in the party. Democrats are having an identity crisis (similar to Republicans) and can't find their voice. There's still time, but they'd better coalesce quickly since many states moved up their primaries.

Here's the noteworthy declared list:
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julian Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Jay Inslee
Kamala Harris
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

noteworthy undeclared:
Joe Biden
Sherrod Brown
John Hickenlooper
Beto O’Rourke
Terry McAuliffe

As far as individual candidates, one way to assess the situation with each candidate is the look at their name and see what the first thing that comes to mind is. For example, your first thought about Klobuchar might be eating with a comb. While not fair, those types of perceptions matter in a crowded field. Most voters won't learn much about each candidate when there are so many, so they eliminate some candidates with seemingly trivial details. There's still time for the candidates to change those reactions, but some might be stuck with them (IMO Warren is hopelessly tainted by the fauxcahontas meme but Klobuchar has time to right the ship).

Buttigieg is actually a good candidate despite no name recognition and being openly gay. If he can get to a nationally-televised debate, he might get a toe-hold and move up in the standings.

Insiders believe Harris has a likability problem similar to [Hillary] Clinton. She looks totally qualified on paper but doesn't have a natural constituency to appeal to this cycle. She's not considered one of the cool, hip lefties and doesn't come across as moderate like Biden. Her best play is probably to move towards the center, however her talk of things like reparations might make her seem too far left for independents in a general election.

Hickenlooper is another one that insiders think could have a chance. Gillibrand has name recognition but, like Harris, is in the awkward space between moderates and far left. Her policy comments of late have sounded pretty far left but far-left Dems see her as a (typical) moderate democrat.

Sherrod Brown is popular within the party and specifically with the party apparatchik. That will help him if he decides to run. The party is very anti-Clinton right now and that will hurt McAuliffe's chances if he runs.


As for Biden ... the big question is whether, as a party, Democrats are comfortable running a white guy as their candidate. That's what Biden is waiting to hear before he declares. He's smart enough to know what's involved in running and won't bother if they DNC will push for minority candidate. I think Perez wants a minority candidate, but most Dems can't fathom what would happen to the party if they lost to Trump again and want a guaranteed winner, regardless of race/gender/etc. Biden is probably the natural choice since he would appeal to centrists and working class who voted for Trump last time. Sherrod Brown could be another. But like I said, both white guys.

I'm not being flippant -- this is a serious issue for Democrats.

[jennypenny]

Buttigieg is actually a good candidate despite no name recognition and being openly gay. If he can get to a nationally-televised debate, he might get a toe-hold and move up in the standings.

Someone emailed me to point out that my statement could be misinterpreted. It's a fair criticism since I'm usually careful with my word choices.

I wasn't saying he is a good person despite being gay, I meant he is a good, solid candidate. I stick by the caveat of being gay because he would be the first openly gay candidate to make a serious run at the presidency. I honestly don't think it's as big an issue as some people think because if someone wouldn't vote for him just because he's gay, they probably wouldn't vote for any democrat regardless.

And since I've unintentionally waded into this topic ... there are some who think this issue could cause problems for Cory Booker. The issue isn't whether he's gay or not -- the issue is how he's handling it. Either he is gay and so then why is he hiding it, especially when he's a democrat. Or he isn't gay and his constant protestations make him appear a little homophobic. It's a fine line he has to walk, but he's a seasoned politician and should be handling it better. The rumors have been around for years so he should be used to dealing with them by now.

[IlliniDave]

The biggest problem for the Dems as I see it from the perspective of being a moderate independent (self-described) living in red flyover country is that being anti-Trump isn't really a platform given that Trump has basically embraced many of the pre-Obama traditional Democrat planks that have had appeal away from the coasts (pro-labor, protectionist, fair and orderly immigration, etc.). Whether or not it is accurate, the perception is that AOC is the face of party and her far-left ideology is seen as what you'll get in return for a Democrat vote. I think a successful Democrat candidate will have to undo that perception.

They are also not doing themselves any favors clinging to the Russia narrative and really need to admit that the real Russia narrative involved the Clinton campaign, elements of the Obama administration, and holdovers of that administration after Trump took office. Short-term thinking would conclude that that would help Trump, and maybe it would, but it would also make it at least possible for the Democrat party to reestablish itself as the bastion of individual liberty. Willingness to reform the DoJ and intelligence services would be a big win for them, I think, since even the establishment Republicans seem to balk at actually taking corrective action.

My own pet peeve with them is elevating identity politics into a religion for the nonreligious. But much to my dismay that seems to be a winning strategy with their core constituency that they probably need to play up for all it is worth. It will cost them my potential vote, but in the grand scheme my vote is less than trivial.

Trump isn't going to be easy to beat, though he's beatable. It might take a campaign similar to his to do it, one that will require hard work and the willingness to address the concerns of voters before adhering to party memes and pushing an ideology. Going into 2016 Republicans didn't have much of a platform because they'd spend the prior 8 years being against Obama rather than for anything meaningful to Jane and Joe average, which meant that none of their insiders stood a chance against Clinton. The Democrats so far have maneuvered themselves into a similar corner, albeit against a guy the MSM and pop culture say is virtuous to hate. I sometimes think it would have been smarter for them to woo Shultz back rather than fire up the hate machine against him.

[fiby41]

Tulsi Gabbard >>> Nikki Haley >> Kamala Harris

[Clarice]

clinging to the Russia narrative

Speaking of "the Russia narrative", this is the most brilliant and refreshingly deep analysis of it - well worth your 27 minutes. After listening, it dawned on me that any political analysis, especially regarding the madness of crowds, is a psychological analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR07OtE ... e=youtu.be

[IlliniDave]

Speaking of "the Russia narrative", this is the most brilliant and refreshingly deep analysis of it - well worth your 27 minutes. After listening, it dawned on me that any political analysis, especially regarding the madness of crowds, is a psychological analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR07OtE ... e=youtu.be

Thanks for linking that. Definitely a new perspective, although I think concluding that people who voted for Trump did so because they were traumatized, that Trump is the way he is because he was traumatized, and those who invested in the "hoax" did so because they were traumatized, is a bit overly-simplified. Still, very thought-provoking.

My first vivid political memory was my dad making me sit in front of the TV to watch Nixon resign. There's a strong civil libertarian streak in me. So I'm hung up on, politics aside, how could such a false narrative have been conceived and distributed from the highest levels of the executive branch of government. Prior to all the resulting hysteria and emotional component, there was a sequence of events that took place, premeditated (they precede the traumatizing event of Trump's election), with increasing evidence of illegality, that have largely been downplayed or ignored. The talk linked below touches on the tip of the iceberg with the opinions of someone who knows a little more about the business than the typical cable news analyst. It's scary stuff for those of us who believe there is such a thing as too much power vested in the federal government.

Drifting back on topic, Tulsi seems to have fallen by the wayside in the Democrat field. It's a head-scratcher to me that Biden could step in and despite a series of gaffs right from the outset, hold such a wide lead in the field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04CQvULROBo

[Clarice]

My first vivid political memory was my dad making me sit in front of the TV to watch Nixon resign. There's a strong civil libertarian streak in me.

Thank you for sharing your first political memory. I would like to share mine.

I am in kindergarten. It's April 22 - Lenin's birthday. Our teacher reads us a story about wonderful Lenin, in general, and his love and concern for children, in particular. After the class during the break, the children are actually discussing Lenin and the question comes up, "Who do you love better, your mom or Lenin?" One after another the kids say, "Lenin". I am standing there and thinking (I distinctly remember that), "Everybody, except for me, is crazy."

Thank you for the link - a very detailed description of how it's done.

[Jean]

My first political memory is seeing Le Pen on the second turn of the french political election, and witnessing all the propaganda against him. That's when I realised that freedom wasn't miraculously served to us.

[unemployable]

Mine was seeing how impotent a president Jimmy Carter was.

[jennypenny]

@Clarice -- Mate is an interesting guy. I listened to this interview a few months ago when I was doing research on meaning (comments on meaning start @5min mark). As iDave said, he does tend to view everything through the trauma lens which IMO doesn't always apply, an example being how he thinks all addictions stem from trauma. Even Freud tended to pigeonhole patients based on his own theories though. I picture Mate opening all patient dialogues with"Tell me about your trauma."

Still, his comments in the video I linked to about being addicted to ideology or identity, and the inadequate substitution of online groups were thought-provoking. I should probably put this post in the 'you are the average of the five people you know' thread.

[Jason]

Thank you for sharing your first political memory. I would like to share mine.

I am in kindergarten. It's April 22 - Lenin's birthday. Our teacher reads us a story about wonderful Lenin, in general, and his love and concern for children, in particular. After the class during the break, the children are actually discussing Lenin and the question comes up, "Who do you love better, your mom or Lenin?" One after another the kids say, "Lenin". I am standing there and thinking (I distinctly remember that), "Everybody, except for me, is crazy."

Thank you for the link - a very detailed description of how it's done.

I just finished reading Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" which discusses the nature of mass movements.

A couple of takeaways for me:

- Equality without freedom creates a more stable social pattern than freedom without equality;
- We are less dissatisfied when we lack many things than we lack one thing;
- Mass movements are enticing for people who want freedom from freedom. Hitler was a failed artist. He was unsuccessful with individual freedom;
- There was ultimately no difference than a communist party member and a National Socialist member;

[theanimal]

Tulsi was on Joe Rogan again today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR8UcnwLH24

[jennypenny]

Several Trump voters I know like Gabbard. They liked Trump because he promised to get the US out of far-flung conflicts around the world and clean up the VA. They feel he hasn't delivered on that promise but believe she would. She's pretty far left though with her support of medicare-for-all and late-term abortion, so I'm not sure if they would vote for her or not. Still, it's interesting that so many Trump supporters voice support for her, especially given the lack of media attention she gets.

[Jean]

Medicare for all(because we have to admit that people are irrational about health), and late term abortion (because aborting people's gene aren't that valuable and you cannot force someone to keep a parasite) are quite easy to accept for conservative, if the trade off is no more aggressive wars.

[Jason]

I think the conservatives are more inclined to let the babies live. Maybe a compromise would be that the babies are spared but immediately armed and sent out to mop up some foreign war zone.

[Kriegsspiel]

Tulsi Gabbard was evidently the most searched candidate post-debates on Google. Her rebuttal to Congressman Ryan.

[IlliniDave]

To me Gabbard is impressive in a way none of the other Dem candidates are. She seems onboard with some policies that I can't get behind (her aversion to unnecessary military activity is not one of those), but the very few times I've heard her speak she seems more honest and more perceptive than your average candidate. Unfortunately, I think another candidate has been selected as the one that will get support of the Dem establishment-media complex, so it's a steep uphill slog for her.