Election 2020

Tulsi Gabbard, Iraq War Veteran and Skeptic of America's Wars, Will Run for President in 2020

The Hawaii congresswoman will be a voice for humility in U.S. foreign policy.

|

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii), a veteran of the Iraq War and critic of America's interventionist foreign policy, says she will run for president in 2020 with a message of peace.

CNN reports that Gabbard will announce her plans to seek the White House on Saturday's edition of The Van Jones Show, which is slated to air at 7 p.m. A formal announcement of her candidacy will follow in the coming weeks, Gabbard said in comments released by CNN on Friday evening.

Gabbard says she will run on a platform that includes criminal justice issues and climate change, but she tells CNN that America's ongoing wars will be her central focus.

"There is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace," Gabbard said, according to CNN. "I look forward to being able to get into this and to talk about it in depth when we make our announcement."

Gabbard has earned her right to be critical of those conflicts. In 2004, she volunteered for a 12-month tour of duty in Iraq while serving in the Hawaii Army National Guard, leaving her seat as a state legislator to do so. She was deployed a second time, to Kuwait, in 2008.

Since entering national politics in 2012—when she became the first Hindu elected to Congress—she has been an outspoken critic of the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy. She opposed the Obama administration's interventions in Syria as being "against America's national security, international credibility, economic interest, and moral center" and has called for putting an end to the Afghanistan war "as soon as possible."

She's also reached across the aisle to work with libertarian-minded Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) to nudge America's foreign policy in a less warmongering direction. Gabbard co-sponsored the House version of Paul's bill to cut off arms sales to Saudi Arabia and backed Amash's amendment to defund the National Security Agency over its warrantless surveillance program.

She's also been critical of her own party, calling out Hillary Clinton's track record of supporting foreign wars during the 2016 presidential primary. "Sec. Clinton has a record and positions that will take us into a future that will include more interventionist wars of regime change," Gabbard told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in March 2016.

Gabbard has already secured a veteran of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I–Vt.) 2016 campaign as her campaign manager, CNN reports. Gabbard had endorsed Sanders in 2016 after falling out with the Democratic National Committee over its handling of the primary and her opposition to Clinton's foreign policy views. While her support for Sanders' economic message may turn off libertarians for obvious reasons, it's difficult to imagine there being anyone in either major party primary who will be more critical of America's wasteful and seemingly endless post-9/11 wars. Her participation in the race will raise the profile of some important issues, for which libertarians should be glad.

She's also got a chance to be a strong candidate. She's young and cool—she surfs; she wants to end marijuana prohibition!—and isn't afraid to be an unorthodox, nonpartisan voice. She will certainly stand out in a Democratic field that figures to be crowded.

Being a fourth-term congresswoman from a small state (and a religious minority to boot) may prove limiting to Gabbard's presidential ambitions. But the last three general elections have been won by the major party candidate who staked out the more dovish position on America's foreign wars—so don't count her out right away.

NEXT: Should Longtime Expats Have the Right to Vote in Elections?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why would any libertarian be interested in some far left democrat from Hawaii, a walk job far left state? Just because she’s non interventionist?

    1. Yes. The war and peace issue is the most important issue in libertarianism. No other issue causes as much human suffering and violations of rights.

      This is good news, that Tulsi is running. The whole establishment will turn against her. It will be interesting to see if she resonates with the voters. Sadly, I don’t have high hopes.

      1. Only a communist idiot could support her.

        1. I’ll be voting for Tulsi in the Democrat primary if she’s still viable on Super Tuesday. Trump’s got the GOP nom if he wants it so why should I, as a far right extremist anarchist, vote for anyone else in the presidential primary? Reason hates/ignores the fetching leftist congresswoman so she must be doing SOMETHING right.

        2. She is a Socialist and the fact that Boehm is excited about it, is typical of Reason’s mostly non-Libertarian staff.

          She evidently enlisted in the Hawaii National Guard in 2003. Served in Iraq in a medical unit. In 2007, she graduated from an accelerated officer school and was commissioned as a 2nd Lt. In 2015 she was promoted to Major. Seems like an unusual accelerated promotion scheme for a mustang medical officer.

          Another fun tidbit is her qualifications to be President: Tulsi Gabbard was born on April 12, 1981, in Leloaloa, American Samoa
          Article II, Section1: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

          Is American Somoa acceptable for a person to be a ‘natural born citizen’ and has she been a resident within the USA for 14 years?

          1. I would say that she is probably fully qualified under the Constitution and even if she is not, Congress can certify her like they did with McCain.

            Lefties hate that anyone they put up against Trump is going to get their asses kicked even worse than Hillary did. 302 to 232 Electoral Votes.

            1. No one has standing to challenge anyway. AOC and Schwarzenegger are free to run as well because nobody can make them ineligible except maybe the superdelegates or Electoral College, but Americans have made those institutions impotent.

          2. Why wouldn’t American Samoa be ok? It isn’t British Samoa.

            1. The current population of American Samoa is approximately 55,689 people. Most of them are “nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth.-Wikipedia
              US State Dept.- Historical Background to Acquisition by Birth in U.S. Territories and Possessions

              Title 8 US Code

              1. Her status as ‘natural born citizen’ is not clear cut, evidently.

                I suspect people will wave off questioning this issue of qualification and that is wrong.

                There are only a few qualifications to be President and all candidates should be qualified or removed from ballots.

                1. Her status is irrelevant because there are far too many X-tians, Jews & Muslims in both parties who won’t vote for a Hindu or anyone else who isn’t from an Abrahamic religion for that matter.

                  1. I’d rather have a Hindu than a Muslim running the USA… They’re not really crazy expansionists trying to take over the world by force at least… But I’d rather have an Odinist if we’re going to go for exotic religions!

                    1. I don’t want this person as president, but yeah, Islam is a bloodthirsty death cult at its core. In a way no other major religion is. Hinduism is not.

          3. Her mother was a natural born citizen.

            1. Her dad was too, IIRC. She might be fine.

              I just want her to address the issue.

        3. Right, a socialist who doesn’t support foreign wars is still a socialist. 50% of dems used to identify as “moderate”, now 50% identify as liberal.

          1. And it wasn’t interventionism that killed hundreds of millions of people in the last hundred years.

            It was socialism.

      2. Yes. The war and peace issue is the most important issue in libertarianism. No other issue causes as much human suffering and violations of rights.

        Gabbard seems ok, based on the Reason write up, but I think the War on Drugs does more damage than our actual military wars.

        1. She seems to be unqualified to be president as Samoans are US Nationals but not Citizens of the USA unless they apply for Citizenship.

          She would probably be consider ineligible because she is not a ‘natural born citizen’.

          1. Laws don’t mean much to democrat judges though, as long as it supports their agenda. After all, Hillary Clinton was technically ineligible to serve as SoS at the time she was confirmed. And that was ignored.

      3. Yes. The war and peace issue is the most important issue in libertarianism. No other issue causes as much human suffering and violations of rights.

        Funny, Trump is rolling those back and Libertarians utterly loathe him.

    2. You might have asked why any principled libertarian would vote for a far left democrat, but I guess that question pretty much answers itself.

      Just because she’s non interventionist?

      She’s also not an arsonist, so she’s also got that in her favor.

      You know who else wasn’t an arsonist?

        1. Considering “Jewish Lightning” was a thing, probably not.

        2. Guy Montag?

          1. Heidi Montag?

      1. Frosty the Snowman?

      2. Cameron Todd Willingham?

      3. Yes. Smokey the Bear.

    3. As opposed to the Democrat in office now?

    4. This is reasons new policy…must write 5 articles feigning praise on a liberal/socialist for every 1 article on a actual libertarian…

      Article on Aoc dance moves…check
      Article on aoc housing search…check
      Article on Aoc green deal…check
      Article on Aoc and her foot fetish followers…check (Welchs diary)
      Article on Tulsi gabbard being ok even though she’s socialist…check

      What party does reason support again?

      Here’s a hint reason, when the pictures accompanying your articles show aoc nasty horseface more than anything else…you’re doing it wrong.

      1. I’m looking forward to an article on an unearthed AOC smartphone sex video made available online.

        It’s almost a mortal lock that one, or more, exist.

    5. One issue with which I could agree and a host of big government liberal positions that make me sick. Obama also promised less foreign intervention and we actually spent more on foreign wars in his 2 terms than in Bush’s 2 terms.

      Trump promised less than backed off. Hired war hawk Bolton but they announced pulling troops out of Syria and possibly serious plans to get out of Afghanistan. I have more faith Trump will at least move that direction than any other who has suggested they will run for President so far.

  2. I’m sure she’s just awful on pretty much everything.

    1. Sad to say, I have to agree that I have seen some extremely statist shit out of that sad state of Hawaii…

    2. She also called for legalizing marijuana. Of course, she is terrible on economic issues, but so is everyone else except Amash and Massie.

      1. Marijuana? Big deal. That’s already happening even if idiots in congress are the last ones to the party. No, she’s garbage on practically everything, I’m sure.

        How do you think she will be on the 2nd amendment? Or private property rights? She seems like the sort to support ‘collective roghts’.

        So you might want to keep your isolationist boner in check. She’s a piece of shit and the enemy of anyone remove libertarian.

      2. When even John Boehner supports legalizing marijuana, you realize that’s not really an unusual position either side of the aisle.
        Abortion, capital punishment, eugenics and euthanasia, military adventurism, identitarianism and intersectionality, global warming, freedom of speech, corporatism, nanny state, gun rights, religious freedom, illegal immigration and authoritarianism are the divisive issues nowadays.

        1. Authoritarianism certainly isnt dividing our two major parties.

          1. They divide the proletariat, not the elite.
            Military adventurism, corporatism, the nanny state and authoritarianism enjoy broad bipartisan support amongst the aristocracy.

  3. “The Hawaii congresswoman will be a voice for humility in U.S. foreign policy.”

    You go, Grrrrlll!!!

    I hope she can do better than Bush II… Who said similar things…

    1. Or Trump, who is doing similar things. Except Dems and Reason didn’t love his planned Syria withdrawal….

      1. It’s different with Trump because reasons.

  4. I’m going to run for president as well. Nobody has heard of me either. Should do as well as her.

    1. Nobody has heard of me either
      That alone should qualify you more than 99% of the candidates.

    2. Are you cute (by politician standards)?

  5. “Tulsi Gabbard, Iraq War Veteran”

    Why do I care that she applied for and then accepted a government job?

    1. You would have preferred that she accepted parentally arranged, fraudulent bone spurs?

      Yes, you would. Of course you would.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|1.11.19 @ 9:29PM|#
        “You would have preferred that she accepted parentally arranged, fraudulent bone spurs?”

        Actually, we’d prefer you fuck off and die, asshole.

        1. Rev, you’d probably try to fake bone spurs too, if you didn’t just slither through life.

      2. Well, since she volunteered your hypothetical is kind of ridiculous.

        1. It’s mind-boggling that he is so desperate to ding Trump that he completely misses your point AND defends draft slavery in the same poat.

          1. Take one for the team.|1.11.19 @ 10:24PM|#
            “It’s mind-boggling that he is so desperate to ding Trump that he completely misses your point AND defends draft slavery in the same poat.”

            Not really.
            The asshole rev has nothing other than lefty bullshit to promote, and a real lack of intelligence to do so. As a result, the asshole often posts contradictory comments, probably not even realizing they are.
            We’re not dealing with anyone here who most of us would consider ‘bright’; half-educated is a compliment.

      3. Um, this is a libertarian website you astonishingly stupid fuck.

        Draft dodging isn’t a problem for us, and is very often commended.

      4. I’d be more interested in having a conversation about the draft if you weren’t a Clinton apologist. As it stands you’re just another Liberal who excused your guy then tried to make me care when someone who isn’t your guy got away with something you excused your guy for.

        In other words, you’re a partisan hypocrite and ignorant of your audience.

      5. I’m fine with any and all reasons someone comes up with to avoid shooting people. What’s your objection? Are you a depraved, warmongering piece of shit like Hillary Clinton?

        -jcr

        1. I’m fine with any and all reasons someone comes up with to avoid shooting people.

          Any reason except having someone else do it and, IMO (given some considerations wrt pragmatics), that’s far worse than doing it yourself.

    2. In all fairness, military jobs are some of the few legitimate government jobs out there. Violence is the government’s job so that we don’t have to do it ourselves.

      1. +10

      2. While true, that doesn’t mean we should want our government to have an itchy trigger finger and a nose that likes to poke into every corner of the world’s regional business.

  6. I can’t wait till she denounces trump for withdrawing from Syria.

    1. Why would she? She firmly believes no chemicals exist in Syria and feels it is appropriate to meet with Assad by herself.

      1. “She firmly believes no chemicals exist in Syria ”

        A sodium chloride denier! I knew it!

  7. “Gabbard says she will run on a platform that includes criminal justice issues and climate change, but she tells CNN that America’s ongoing wars will be her central focus.”

    Two out of three ain’t bad, but that loser is a *doozy*!

    1. What, you’re not ready to give up all fossil fuels yet!?!?!

      I bet that you are one of those evil carbon-dioxide-exhaling polluters, too, aren’t you?!?!?

      Fess up and repent NOW, dammit!!!!

      (Me personally, I am VERY noble; I serve as a “human carbon sink”… I eat as much free food at family reunions and corporate picnics and what-not as I can… Carbon tied up in my body is NOT causing global warmerering!!!)

      I do it all for YOU, and you are WELCOME!!!!

      1. What a guy! Or gal!

      2. I decided to fight global warming by sequestering select neighbors. 😉

      3. What happens when you’re eventually cremated? Global temperature will rise by 10 degrees overnight!

        1. We can compost him.

      4. Thank you for your selfless acts towards the rest of humanity.

  8. This passage is alarming:

    She’s also been critical of her own party, calling out Hillary Clinton’s track record of supporting foreign wars during the 2016 presidential primary. “Sec. Clinton has a record and positions that will take us into a future that will include more interventionist wars of regime change,” Gabbard told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in March 2016.

    As Drumpf’s reckless behavior regarding Syria and Afghanistan proves, now is exactly the wrong time to display military weakness. On the contrary, we must be willing to confront hostile foreign powers. Russia hacked our election in 2016, and in doing so attacked the very foundations of our democracy. Our next Commander in Chief needs to be a fighter, not a “dove.”

    #LibertariansForStayingInSyria
    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. You should read “The Art of War”.

      1. “Nuclear War Survival Skills” by Cresson Kearny is more current.

      2. Anymore, I think ‘Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel’ is just as appropriate. It covers the basics, plus concepts like ‘weasonable doubt’.

    2. Yep, Wilson, our first Progressive Democrat President, brought us into WWI to save democracy by … punishing the guy who assassinated an unelected monarch. When one is as White as a Progressive Democrat, the British royal family some how looks like a democratic institution. There is a precedent for Progressive Democrats demanding that we confront Russia over the lack of yet one more President Clinton in the White House.

      1. Dude, the belligerents were fighting over heroin markets after China booted them out in 1912. Balkan opium accumulated, war escalated, and These States sold to all comers. When Russia went commie and quit, those loans were jeopardized. America entered the war to collect Daddy Warbucks’ government-guaranteed arrearage.

  9. The only two areas where I see her as ‘progressive’ rather than libertarian is re health care and the environment – which are two of the issues where libertarians have completely failed to make a coherent case for an alternative

    I don’t vote DeRp – but if I did I’d vote Tulsi

    1. ” where libertarians have completely failed to make a coherent case for an alternative”

      No, we’ve made a case. The free market. You just don’t like the consequences of that and want your pony.

      1. Three words uttered as a mantra to everything is not an alternative

        No more so than What would Jesus do or Bless your heart

        1. JFree|1.11.19 @ 9:03PM|#
          “Three words uttered as a mantra to everything is not an alternative.”
          Imbeciles who lack basic understanding are not worth any more than three words, idiot.

          1. You said it slightly less politely but yes, you are correct. It means something to people with education on the subject. Saying the free market “is not an alternative” is a shibboleth that indicates one is in fact not educated on the subject.

            1. Rick B.|1.11.19 @ 10:08PM|#
              “You said it slightly less politely but yes, you are correct. It means something to people with education on the subject. Saying the free market “is not an alternative” is a shibboleth that indicates one is in fact not educated on the subject.”

              I did so as it was the noted lefty ignoramus who made the comment. That piece of shit is willfully ignorant when it suits his pathetic attempts at ‘being clever’.
              He deserves far worse than I can give him here.

          2. Actually, he is correct. Saying the free market is not enough. You need to delineate a property rights regime to go along with it. For example, who will own migrating birds? And so on.

            1. So I can add you to the list of people who aren’t educated on the subject.

            2. Chipper Morning Baculum|1.11.19 @ 10:55PM|#
              “Actually, he is correct. Saying the free market is not enough. You need to delineate a property rights regime to go along with it. For example, who will own migrating birds? And so on.”

              Actually, you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus by attempting to move the goal posts.
              But I guess you know that by now.
              Fuck off, slaver

              1. Out of metamucil again, Sevo?

            3. who will own migrating birds?

              Whoever puts forth the effort to capture them, duh!

              -jcr

              1. Can you explain what he meant by that? Because we ard discussing health care and it seems totally out of left field.

                1. There was a seminal Supreme Court case that gave Congress the authority to write environmental legislation. When Congress could not pass a law to protect migrating birds, it signed a treaty with Canada to protect them, and the Supreme Court upheld it. Once everyone got used to Congress protecting the environment, they didn’t complain about Congress directly passing environmental laws to protect endangered species. This is one problem that we actually can blame on Canada.

        2. “Three words uttered as a mantra to everything is not an alternative”

          It is if you’re educated on the subject.

          I apologize, it was my error for assuming you were.

          1. You clearly don’t know your ass from your elbow.

            You’ve just admitted that charity is basically the only solution re health care. Well guess what – The free market does not depend on the benevolence of the butcher. Charity DOES. Which is of course why someone like Adam Smith also wrote about ethics.

            The main problem with those who now advocate ‘the free market’ as the solution for health care is that they themselves exhibit not one whit of that charity or any ethic worth a damn. So what you are really advocating is FYTW. So I for one am not surprised that the progressive is gonna take money by coercion – and tell you FYTW. And that ain’t a hill I’m gonna die on – cuz neither of you are worth a damn.

            And the environment CANNOT be solved by neoclassical/marginalist economics – cuz that discipline no longer includes land as a factor of production. So it ends up with externalities – that everyone knows about and accepts – but can’t figure out how to include – so they deny that the problem exists in reality.

            1. “You’ve just admitted that charity is basically the only solution re health care”

              No actually, I said it was one area that would benefit.

              But because you have a child’s grasp of the subject, you see what you want.

              More importantly, it demonstrated that Sevo was correct when he said that you are “willfully ignorant when it suits his pathetic attempts at ‘being clever.”

              You’d rather paraphrase and argue with straw men than address your own ignorance.

              1. You and Sevo are just insulting him when he is trying to debate in good faith. I don’t expect much from Sevo, but you should do better.

                1. Chipper Morning Baculum|1.11.19 @ 10:58PM|#
                  ‘You and Sevo are just insulting him when he is trying to debate in good faith.’

                  Shitbag, you are a laugh riot.
                  JFree has ‘debated in good faith’ perhaps once when I missed it long ago. Read his 10:32 post subtract strawmen and you’ll find just about nothing left.
                  Fuck you and him/her with Tony’s dick.

                2. Where I come from, grossly misstating your debate opponents position is definitely not good faith.

                  So, there’s that.

                3. Chipper Morning Baculum|1.11.19 @ 10:58PM|#

                  You and Sevo are just insulting him when he is trying to debate in good faith. I don’t expect much from Sevo, but you should do better.

                  You smell like a burner for JFree.

                4. Chipper Morning Baculum|1.11.19 @ 10:58PM|#

                  You and Sevo are just insulting him when he is trying to debate in good faith. I don’t expect much from Sevo, but you should do better.

                  JFree|1.11.19 @ 10:32PM|#

                  You clearly don’t know your ass from your elbow

                  That’s good faith to you I guess.

            2. Ok, so JFree has outed himself as a progtard, and is not worth listening to.

              1. Last of the Shitlords|1.11.19 @ 11:00PM|#
                “Ok, so JFree has outed himself as a progtard, and is not worth listening to.”

                JFree has never been other than that.
                Ask that fucking ignoramus which company really forced him to buy their product; you’ll get insults in return.
                “Good faith”? Only that asshole Chipper Morning Baculum would make that claim.

            3. “The main problem with those who now advocate ‘the free market’ as the solution for health care is that they themselves exhibit not one whit of that charity or any ethic worth a damn. ”

              Here we have the problem in a nutshell. You assume everyone is like you, so force is ok.

              However, everyone isn’t like you, and even if they were, you’d still be pointing a gun at people to make yourself feel better.

              1. Die Totmacher|1.11.19 @ 11:06PM|#
                “Here we have the problem in a nutshell. You assume everyone is like you, so force is ok.
                However, everyone isn’t like you, and even if they were, you’d still be pointing a gun at people to make yourself feel better.”

                Exactly. That scumbag, Chipper Morning Baculum, Tony, the so claimed ‘Moderation’ all project their greed on the rest of us, and therefore presume that assholes like themselves are the definition of humanity.
                Hint, you pathetic excuses for humans: Many of us enjoy contributing to the general wellfare by making a profit while laughing at your slimy greed.

                1. I’m pretty sure Chipper Morning Baculum is JFree as well.

                  1. Josh Bildung|1.11.19 @ 11:31PM|#
                    “I’m pretty sure Chipper Morning Baculum is JFree as well.”
                    Could well be, but stupidity on the left is so common that it’s hard to separate one fucking ignoramus from the other.

                  2. “I’m pretty sure Chipper Morning Baculum is JFree as well.”

                    Mmmmaybe. It’s rather beside the point. I don’t need to espouse an alternative when JFree and Chipper’s default position is to point a gun at me. That they rely on force to get their way makes them wrong, full stop.

                  3. At the very least they are two nuts in a sack.

              2. Here we have the problem in a nutshell. You assume everyone is like you, so force is ok.

                That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying I don’t give a shit about others coercing you if you don’t exhibit the sort of charity or other ethic that actually allows for a society to function. NOR will I do the slightest thing to protect what you claim to be your property rights in that situation. Cuz MY protecting your rights in that situation is an act of charity on my part (there’s nothing in it for me) – and obviously if you yourself want to be consistent then you shouldn’t be expecting anyone else to do anything for you if you aren’t willing to do anything for anyone else. You’re on your own. See how that works?

                There’s plenty of classical liberal thinking and even early libertarian (like AJ Nock) that can reconcile those two. But the entire Randian ethic and Rothbardian sophomoric nonsense that constitutes a pretty significant part of modern ‘libertarianism’ is alien to anyone other than some supposedly peaceful prepper living in complete isolation from the world. As I said – that ain’t a hill I’m gonna die on.

            4. And the environment CANNOT be solved by neoclassical/marginalist economics

              Flat-out lie. New York in the late 1800s had “sniffers”, I think they were called, who sniffed out sources of stink so private citizens could sue them. Amazingly effective, which is why the cronies shut them down and relegated environmental enforcement to government, where they could better distribute favors and punishment.

              Fuck off, slaver.

              1. New York in the late 1800s had “sniffers”, I think they were called, who sniffed out sources of stink so private citizens could sue them. Amazingly effective,

                You just pulled that out of your ass.

                1. And you’re Chipper Morning Baculum.

                  1. What is it about the conservative mind that draws it so readily to conspiration theories? I am not JFree, dumbass.

                2. JFree|1.11.19 @ 11:52PM|#
                  “You just pulled that out of your ass.”
                  So you’re accusing someone to be as pathetic piece of shit as you are proven to be, scumbag?
                  I doubt it.

                3. No.

            5. You are a genius! Thanks for getting it right.

                1. I consider it likely they are two separate scumbags. But you could be right.

              1. ErinS|1.12.19 @ 12:19AM|#
                “You are a genius! Thanks for getting it right.”

                You are a fucking ignoramus. Thanks for proving it.

            6. The main problem with those who now advocate ‘the free market’ as the solution for health care is that they themselves exhibit not one whit of that charity or any ethic worth a damn.

              The problem with people who support medicare, is that they themselves are not willing to kidnap a psychiatrist, lock him in the laundry room, slip some angle dust into his food every time he gets rebellious, and warn him that they’ll give him ECT if the medication doesn’t work until the psychiatrist is willing to provide his service to others at a reasonable price that they set.

              😉

            7. And the environment CANNOT be solved by neoclassical/marginalist economics – cuz that discipline no longer includes land as a factor of production. So it ends up with externalities – that everyone knows about and accepts – but can’t figure out how to include – so they deny that the problem exists in reality.

              Granted, environmental literature mentions “non-point pollution”, meaning pollution that comes from an unidentified location (not, as the term suggests, pollution that comes from somewhere that isn’t a point in space-time). This saves law enforcement the effort of discovering which person poured a poison on the ground that eventually ended up in someone’s well. The same concept allows politicians to worry about non-point cocaine when there is a drug overdoes instead of finding the person responsible for the overdoes. Come to think about it, some police districts treat spray paint on walls as non-point vandalism.

            8. And the environment CANNOT be solved by neoclassical/marginalist economics – cuz that discipline no longer includes land as a factor of production. So it ends up with externalities – that everyone knows about and accepts – but can’t figure out how to include – so they deny that the problem exists in reality.

              Let’s go back to, say, German reunification.

              One side had, for the most part, private enterprise doing the work, The other side had the government.

              What part of Germany was far better in terms of the environment or basic cleanliness — West or East?

              Why is Communist China one of the biggest environmental shitholes on Earth, if the free market is so damned God awful at handling the environment as opposed to the government?

              1. In general you’re right. Govt isn’t going to do better re the environment – because it bases its economic decisions on marginalist econ as well. This isn’t an issue where one method can figure things out and the other can’t. This is an issue where we should be pessimistic – until a future generation restores classical ‘land’ back into economics.

                What govt can do – and what it has done in all those free market countries – is

                a)introduce ‘environment’ into public debate because public debate doesn’t require and isn’t rationed by price tags. So when a big river burns, people can say This is just fucking wrong. They do not have to shut up because they can’t claim ‘property’ in court. That debate is what creates demand for better environmental solutions. And if someone is insisting on stealing the commons – because it is ‘free’ to steal from – then

                b)that can be made a crime and stopped. Maybe stupidly – maybe justified as ‘preserving this for future generations’. But the free market has absolutely zero way of incorporating ‘future generations’ into any decisions – until land is restored back into econ and ‘usufruct’ again becomes a way of discussing property in land.

                1. a)introduce ‘environment’ into public debate because public debate doesn’t require and isn’t rationed by price tags. So when a big river burns, people can say This is just fucking wrong. They do not have to shut up because they can’t claim ‘property’ in court. That debate is what creates demand for better environmental solutions. And if someone is insisting on stealing the commons – because it is ‘free’ to steal from – then

                  This is silly. Governments won’t say a damned word and will stifle stories beyond all recognition if they can possibly get away with it.

                  Let’s look at a relatively well-known catastrophe — 1986 Chernobyl.

                  The government of the USSR was quite willing to keep that shit quiet — not even telling the residents of Pripyat exactly what happened or that they will likely never be able to return. They kept quiet the suicide squads of workers who (and their work was, mind you, heroic as all hell) helped avoid an absolute meltdown and a catastrophe of levels never before imagined.

                  Japan has definitely tried to keep the problems in Fukushima as quiet as possible — but the Soviets would have NEVER even mentioned Chernobyl if countries like Finland didn’t notice massive increases in radioactivity and that it was coming from the East. Japan was UNABLE to keep Fukushima silent because the government lacked the power to completely shut reporting down.

                2. b)that can be made a crime and stopped. Maybe stupidly – maybe justified as ‘preserving this for future generations’. But the free market has absolutely zero way of incorporating ‘future generations’ into any decisions – until land is restored back into econ and ‘usufruct’ again becomes a way of discussing property in land.

                  There would be no “tragedy of the commons” in the free market. If SOMEBODY owns the land, SOMEBODY has a reason to protect it.

                  Want to preserve the Amazon rain forest? Sell it. Right now, NOBODY has skin in the game so nobody cares.

                  The free market gives SOMEBODY a reason to care. The government does not. Rest assured, I was WAY more careful, back in school, with shit I owned than what the school “gave” me. It’s why private houses tend to be so much nicer than government provided housing.

                  1. You pretty clearly haven’t actually read Tragedy of the Commons. Like a ton of people who pretend to cite both that and Coase’s Social Costs. You really should read both.

                    The reality is that in Western countries, government is not some fucking alien dictator that flew in from Mars. It is the mechanism by which EVERYONE is free to put information/knowledge into the public sphere in order to debate it and maybe even figure out a better means of self-governance. That doesn’t mean the solutions are worth a shit – I personally believe (like Hayek) that its best value is that people learn from that and apply that new knowledge to their own circumstances. But the free market does not and will NEVER even provide the mechanism for that. It can’t. It does other things via the pricing system.

                    Gabbard and that entire next generation are not stifling discussion of the environment. They are talking about it. It is the older generation of deniers who are trying to stifle the discussion cuz they don’t want to change – or learn – and are as always threatened by a new generation and their own demise. It is not that that nextgen’s particular ideas are important/true. Odds are they are dumb as fuck. But what IS important is – that they will have to live with the consequences of what they are talking about for far far longer than you will. Which is far more important ‘ownership’ than what you cling to.

                    1. The reality is that in Western countries, government is not some fucking alien dictator that flew in from Mars. It is the mechanism by which EVERYONE is free to put information/knowledge into the public sphere in order to debate it and maybe even figure out a better means of self-governance.

                      Clearly that is not the case. It is a mechanism where people, unaccountable to anybody, are able to fuck with your life in ways great and small with impunity. Government ceased being responsive to the people LONG ago.

                      Gabbard and that entire next generation are not stifling discussion of the environment. They are talking about it. It is the older generation of deniers who are trying to stifle the discussion cuz they don’t want to change – or learn – and are as always threatened by a new generation and their own demise.

                      The older generation has seen pure demagoguery before, repeatedly, and are less willing to tolerate the BS that comes with it. This belief, by the young, that they alone reinvented the wheel is pure insanity and idiocy.

                      But what IS important is – that they will have to live with the consequences of what they are talking about for far far longer than you will. Which is far more important ‘ownership’ than what you cling to.

                      So, “I got mine and fuck you”: is good enough. Good to know.

                    2. The older generation has seen pure demagoguery before, repeatedly, and are less willing to tolerate the BS that comes with it.

                      That is $22 trillion worth of unadulterated BS. $22 trillion worth of sucking on the teat of one’s grandkids in order to get free stuff promised by demagogues. With not one whit of interest in even discussing that obvious looting and mooching. Face it – the older generation (and I am part of that too) has ZERO credibility and ZERO wisdom to offer anyone.

                      I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;” that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. – Thomas Jefferson

                      I understand that Jefferson was just another one of them communists. But those words used to mean something. And all you seem to want is for the Earth itself to belong to the wealthy near-dead and for the living to be coerced into carrying out their will once they pass. So that the Earth can belong to the dead.

                    3. That is $22 trillion worth of unadulterated BS. $22 trillion worth of sucking on the teat of one’s grandkids in order to get free stuff promised by demagogues.

                      And the youth want EVEN MORE. Medicare for All is BELOVED by these same young, leftist fascists who demand that we bankrupt the world because bad climate models look hella scary.

                      These kids aren’t demanding a slowdown in spending. They are demanding a massive acceleration.

                      Face it – the older generation (and I am part of that too) has ZERO credibility and ZERO wisdom to offer anyone.

                      We can recognize that bankrupting the world over a laughable science based on bad models and with exactly zero predictive value is a moronic idea.

                      And all you seem to want is for the Earth itself to belong to the wealthy near-dead and for the living to be coerced into carrying out their will once they pass. So that the Earth can belong to the dead.

                      No, I recognize that people can do precisely jack shit to the world and to pretend otherwise is idiocy.

                    4. We can recognize that bankrupting the world over a laughable science based on bad models and with exactly zero predictive value is a moronic idea.

                      You have no right to bankrupt the future. They have every right to bankrupt themselves. And as I stated before, our gen is $22 trillion in the hole re our credibility to lecture ANYONE about responsibility

                    5. The reality is that in Western countries, government is not some fucking alien dictator that flew in from Mars. It is the mechanism by which EVERYONE is free to put information/knowledge into the public sphere in order to debate it and maybe even figure out a better means of self-governance.

                      Clearly that is not the case. It is a mechanism where people, unaccountable to anybody, are able to fuck with your life in ways great and small with impunity. Government ceased being responsive to the people LONG ago.

                      Gabbard and that entire next generation are not stifling discussion of the environment. They are talking about it. It is the older generation of deniers who are trying to stifle the discussion cuz they don’t want to change – or learn – and are as always threatened by a new generation and their own demise.

                      The older generation has seen pure demagoguery before, repeatedly, and are less willing to tolerate the BS that comes with it. This belief, by the young, that they alone reinvented the wheel is pure insanity and idiocy.

                      But what IS important is – that they will have to live with the consequences of what they are talking about for far far longer than you will. Which is far more important ‘ownership’ than what you cling to.

                      So, “I got mine and fuck you”: is good enough. Good to know.

                    6. JFree|1.12.19 @ 1:35PM|#
                      “You pretty clearly haven’t actually read Tragedy of the Commons. Like a ton of people who pretend to cite both that and Coase’s Social Costs. You really should read both.”

                      As should you. And really try to understand the concepts this time.
                      It seems that might well be well beyond your limited reasoning capabilities, so, failing that, you could simply STFU and quit making an ass of yourself.
                      But, before you go, tell us which company forced you to buy their product. You make that claim often enough, you pathetic piece of shit, and never seem to have any evidence.

              2. Oh – and one big reason China has such environmental problems is because we simply outsourced the point of pollution of manufacturing crap cheaply. And so shifted the pollution there rather than here. Hell we’ve been exporting our garbage (our largest export to them by volume) to China – for them to dispose of by throwing it into the Pacific.

                1. Ahh, Chinese pollution is, of course, America’s fault. Should have realized that. Nothing on Earth bad can happen unless the USA is the cause of it.

                2. JFree|1.12.19 @ 12:16PM|#
                  “Oh – and one big reason China has such environmental problems is because we simply outsourced the point of pollution of manufacturing crap cheaply. ”

                  Oh, one more lefty lie from JFree.
                  Do you ever post without lying, you pathetic piece of shit?

              3. Part of the problem with government solutions is that you have government employees doing the work.

        3. Those three words are the key to getting millions of minds working on thousands of alternatives.

          Without those three words, we are limited to government bumbling on -zero- alternatives. What government produces is so incoherent that it cannot be included among potential solutions.

          1. Seriously, if you cannot comprehend this basic truth, then you either have blinders are or are intentionally lying or are too stupid to survive on your own. Since you are commenting here, the last is out. Which of those first two is correct is irrelevant.

          2. You know what pisses me off the most about you goddamed statist freaks? With one breath, you decry the profit motive as evil, and with the other, you deny that it exists.

            Every single time you want some new state intervention in markets, you justify it with “market failure”, that businesses are simply too greedy and selfish to see beyond the end of their noses, as if government bumblers can see beyond the next press release, poll, or election.

            Then any time anyone says “free market”, you deny that anyone has any incentive to step up and find a solution to new problems which politicians haven’t even become aware of yet.

            Make up your fuckin’ minds. Either profit is completely useless as an incentive, or it is supremely effective. You can’t have it both ways.

            Fuck off, slavers.

              1. “Either profit is completely useless as an incentive, or it is supremely effective.”

                The best example of a false dichotomy sin Dubya’s “You’re either with us or against us”.

                Kudos.

          3. If the government refused to take responsibility for the general quality of the land in a city, individuals would value city land less and move to lots in the suburbs with setbacks large enough to create a buffer between them and their neighbors. This would reduce the number of neighbors who are close enough to sponge off … errr I mean provide services to in this creative new economy/ ask for charity/ tax.

        4. Jesus would live cancer free by getting executed before the age of 40, thus saving everyone the need to keep carcinogens out of the environment or pay oncologists. That plan would also make social security solvent.

          1. Yeah, but 3 days later he came back, and look at all the trouble that has caused!

            1. He didn’t stick around long after his regeneration before he left earth to travel time and space.

      2. Somebody better not tell J that America reduced emissions more than any country despite not signing Paris.

        1. That involves JFree accepting capitalism and it’s benefits. Not being Marxist trash.

        2. Did you get your data from crackhead.com?

          1. ErinS|1.12.19 @ 12:20AM|#
            “Did you get your data from crackhead.com?”

            Did you hope to look like other than a fucking ignoramus?

          2. The US has dramatically reduced emissions over the last few decades. Our emissions are also very low relative to our GDP.

          3. Hey, my local community center for mentally disabled people/ homeless people/ drug users was run by a crackhead … oh, I see your point.

          4. Ouch. Erin outside themselves as fucking retarded.

          5. Did you get your data from crackhead.com?

            Well, the BP Statistical Review of World Energy from 2017. Emissions for the US alone were barely beaten by the total combined reduction for the entire EU (758M metric tons for the US to 770M metric tons for the EU). The #2 country with the biggest reduction was the UK…at 170M metric tons.

      3. If what you mean by “Free Market” is that if you can not afford health care you don’t get health care, then say what you mean. Because it sound like you don’t like the consequences of what your suggesting. So instead you are hiding behind the phrase “Free Market” I would like to hear Tulsi Gabbard ideas on health care and see how they compare with “Free Market” ideas.

        1. Moderation4ever|1.11.19 @ 9:23PM|#
          “If what you mean by “Free Market” is that if you can not afford health care you don’t get health care, then say what you mean.”
          If you mean you drug that straw man all the way from home, then say what you mean.

          “So instead you are hiding behind the phrase “Free Market” I would like to hear Tulsi Gabbard ideas on health care and see how they compare with “Free Market” ideas.”
          Goody for you.
          Fuck off, slaver.

        2. ” it sound like you don’t like the consequences of what your suggesting.”

          Then you need to listen better, because I like the consequences fine.

          People like you will have to stop stealing from me to assuage your conscience. Prices, as a result, will no longer be distorted. Then people who can’t afford healthcare because nannies like you drove the prices up will be able to afford it, and people who stopped giving to charities will have money to donate because they aren’t getting bent over and forced to subsidize your feelings.

          1. It is really hard to understate how much governments waste.

            Federal, state, and local governments spend $8-9T a year. That comes to $25-30 thousand for every single person in the country, around $100 thousand for every family.

            Do you honestly think you get your $30K worth out of government? Do you really think your family gets $100K worth out of government?

            90% of government spending is utterly wasted on government boondoggles. Every study I have seen says that if the 12+% stolen from wages for Social Security were instead invested by wage earners in basic stock market index funds, pensions would far outpace what retirees receive.

            Hospital prices are so distorted that no one really knows how much prescriptions and procedures would cost, except that it would be fair, transparent, and a lot less.

            Only Statist parasites think government is competent.

            1. (This was not directed to Rick B, but to Moderation4ever. Got carried away with my rant. I despise statist slavers.)

            2. Hell, look at it a very micro level.

              Restrooms.

              Government buildings have restrooms. Private buildings have restrooms.

              As a general rule, which ones are cleaner?

              Mind you, the government spends far more in upkeep for their restrooms than private entities do.

              So, which one would you choose to use? A retail store bathroom, bad as it is, or any government office bathroom?

              1. So, which one would you choose to use? A retail store bathroom, bad as it is, or any government office bathroom?

                I, like most people, would choose to use the closest one.

                You OTOH would wander around soiling yourself, asking permission to use a restroom without having to purchase something – until a store owner appalled at your fecal smell repelling customers called the cops to have you evicted. And finally after being booked, you would reluctantly either choose to use the govt jailhouse toilet or the other inmates would insist that you be hosed down.

                1. Ah, so hypotheticals are wasted on you. I assumed so but thank you for proving it to be the case.

                  Is this the “good faith” I heard somebody praising you for?

                  1. so hypotheticals are wasted on you.

                    I don’t see the point of it. I long ago stopped being interested in pointless sophomoric bull sessions while stoned. We live in the world of reality not hypotheticals. We have relatively short lives. So if we are to make a meaningful change in this world we have to deal with the world as it is – not the world as we can make it appear in some hypothetical.

                    Idk if you are one of those Rothbardians but if you are that’s one of the biggest problems I have with them. They live in a world of complete hypotheticals. Where we all have lawyers to negotiate contracts. Where we can negotiate everything new from scratch – while taking for granted (and for free) a literal shit-ton of assumed/implied contracts that are in fact the creation of ALL of us acting as a society. eg – you don’t have to negotiate 1000 easement contracts before breakfast every day just for the purpose of getting to contract. Those have been ‘pre-negotiated’ for you – by setting aside some land as PUBLIC roadway. To the Rothbardian, that all has zero value in their hypothetical world – because it actually EXISTS in reality.

                    1. Edit: you don’t have to negotiate 1000 easement contracts before breakfast every day just for the purpose of getting to contract.

                      for the purpose of getting to work.

              2. Depends on the private business. I have a few go to commodes around town at specific businesses that are dependably clean. And they keep them that way without taxpayer money.

            3. People need to understand nearly all govt workers are unionized. All union labor is over-priced because it includes an inflated hourly wages that is indexed off of the federal minimum wage, not the market value, PLUS numerous fringe benefits including healthcare AND a pension.

              Then you have the davis-bacon act that FORCES private companies, like mine, to pay those massively inflates wages/benefits to my PRIVATELY owned workers, when i perform work for the government. All just to eliminate my competitive advantage incase a union shop wants to bid against me, since id destroy any union shop in a fair, open, cost analysis.

              So not only does all govt labor cost more than its market value, but government forces private companies to pay OVER MARKET VALUE union/prevailing wage rates, for their labor to do the things the government can’t do for itself. And those rates are determined by the federal minimum wage, aka politicians, not the market.

        3. Free market means millions of minds working on solutions independently and cooperatively. It means that efficient practical solutions are imminent, that social disruptions will occur as fast or as slowly as society wants, and that continuous improvement is in order.

          Compare that to government. Politicians will bring up proposals with no basis in reality, without regard to what works and doesn’t work, without any consideration for what actual people want. Some horrible mish mash will result and will disrupt people’s lives for no gain, and then the next election will bring a new crop of bumblers who will bring in fresh distortions and disruptions.

          The only people who support this government bumbling are those who stand to gain bureaucratic empire from it.

        4. If you need care you can’t afford them you should seek out charity, because that’s the reality of the situation. Pretending that non contributing broke dicks are paying for their shit by getting it from government is just progtard bullshit.

        5. Why do you think health care is so expensive? I’ll give you three guesses…

          -jcr

          1. Um….

            Government?
            Regulation?
            Socialist assholes?

        6. “Moderation4ever|1.11.19 @ 9:23PM|#”
          If you have followed the posts of this idiot, “moderation” means statist bullshit but in amounts some fools might find to be acceptable.
          Moderation4ever is a fucking lefty ignoramus hoping a name which suggest otherwise is a cover for the bullshit, right Mod-ignoramus?
          Fuck off, slaver.

        7. So instead you are hiding behind the phrase “Free Market” I would like to hear Tulsi Gabbard ideas on health care and see how they compare with “Free Market” ideas.

          This is why so many people don’t become doctors. Tell you what, lets start with government mandated jewelry insurance and see what that does to the jewelry industry before toying with the health care industry. So far, the correlation shows a decline in life expectancy after we passed ObamaCare.

          What are your views on climate change?

        8. The alternative is coercive, and not a market at all.

      4. The problem is that the free market will never apply to medicine.

        You would have to let anyone be a doctor (or nurse). You’d have to not only legalize every drug, but get rid of drug patents and the FDA

        While I would be in favor of all that, that’s never, ever, going to happen.

        1. Americans think they can outlaw death.

        2. “You would have to let anyone be a doctor (or nurse). You’d have to not only legalize every drug, but get rid of drug patents and the FDA”

          Those are ridiculous assumptions. Classic strawmen.

          1. The pharmaceutical industry is probably the biggest pimp on K Street. If a bill shows up to eliminate drug patents or even reduce the exclusivity window, you can bet that Big Poppa Pharma will get enough of his congresshoes to vote it down. Can’t have government interfering in our 2000% price hikes!

            So yeah, I believe Jeremy when he says that’ll never happen. As for FDA, only change I can see happening is privatization of that agency.

            1. The FDA is the primary reason drugs, especially generics, are so expensive. Go look at the timeline and costs to start a generic drug factory.

      5. How much consideration have you given to the possibility that anti-libertarians simply prefer coercion; are sold on the initiation of force as THE panacea? Most I’ve questioned expressed this preference, the remainder spouted gibberish.

      6. The alternative is freedom to buy what you choose with no restrictions and no interference from government. Sadly we will never see that freedom.

    2. JFree|1.11.19 @ 8:44PM|#
      “The only two areas where I see her as ‘progressive’ rather than libertarian is re health care and the environment – which are two of the issues where libertarians have completely failed to make a coherent case for an alternative”

      Fuck you, asshole. I don’t owe you or anyone else an “alternative” to your preferred theft.

    3. There is a somewhat libertarian solution for healthcare. A catastrophic single payer that kicks in at around 25-30% of AGI on head of households . Under that percentage of AGI is free market insurance policies. On-going catastrophic and bankrupting disease, tragedy..(car accidents, cancer, kidney disease or requiring expensive surgery and). This could eliminate medicaid and medicare and all of those $5k bandaids and knee replacements. When human beings have skin in the game (the high deductible) they tend to shop on cost.

      Of course it will never happen with a population of 340million and the special interest lobbying. Healthcare is 20% of GDP and provides silly administrative jobs to a large part of the population (entering codes into computers for insurance payment, etc.). Healthcare has become a branch of government similar to the MTA and unions in NYC.

    4. two of the issues where libertarians have completely failed to make a coherent case for an alternative

      You assume the problem has one or even a handful of coherent solutions or alternatives, which is dumb. The are a wide array of solutions or alternatives and libertarianism and/or the market is the means by which the most are explored for efficacy as quickly and efficiently as possible. Your solution or whatever alternative you seek exists in the market. The main reason you don’t see the market as an alternative (despite it being many) is because you don’t think it will choose your solution or a solution that you approve of in a manner you approve of. Which strongly suggests that you’ve got the situation backwards; the market has solutions and your alternative is incoherent shit.

  10. She broke my heart when she voted for FOSTA. I was a fan of hers up until that point.

  11. OT:
    So Morales was ‘inaugurated’ yesterday, ushering in more grief for Venezuelans, some of which they so richly deserve, but not all.
    I get a bunch of links as a result, and it’s interesting to find the definitive image of the evil in which that country is awash. Well, here’s a good one:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-0Zy7yqAUw – 34:20
    Nope, not a Stalin figure or a one of the hired torturers; it’s that millennial asshole with the spray can. He and his ilk are firm believers that they are ‘owed’ something by those who work to produce those things. He is willing to use guns to take it away from them or support the government to do it for him.
    HE is the evil which makes such hell-holes like Venezuela and Cuba possible.

    1. You might feel better if you take a chill pill or eat some cake. Should I start baking for you?

      1. Send some my way Alice B.

      2. sharmota4zeb|1.12.19 @ 5:31AM|#
        “You might feel better if you take a chill pill or eat some cake. Should I start baking for you?”

        Was that you with the spray can?

  12. She’s not going to fuck you Eric.

    1. But that’s the only reason he writes hagiographies at all.
      Please don’t take away his dreams.

  13. https://gabbard.house.gov/gun-control

    As the debate over guns and our constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights continues, what is often overlooked are common sense actions that many advocates on both sides of this issue agree on. There are practical steps that both the public and gun owners recognize as necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not own or use them. Tulsi is working to increase school security, shore up and reform our mental healthcare system, close the gun show and online loopholes, ban military-style assault weapons and bump stocks, and require background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun. She has cosponsored legislation like the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Act, the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act, the Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act, the Gun Violence Research Act, and more.

    Sounds like Reason’s kind of gal.

    1. A gun banner with a warship named after her. Hypocrite.

    2. She saw first hand how well disarming the Iraqis worked.

    3. Anybody citing the “gun show loophole” has demonstrated that they don’t have the first clue what they are talking about.

  14. If anyone is interested…. gabbi is/was involved in a Hawaiian cult whose members heavily contribute to her campaigns. Science of Identity Foundation. Good reading.

    1. So Eric might not have read more than a headline?

      1. Half of the writers on reason do headline only analysis. Lazy journalists.

      2. You don’t understand Sevo. You can’t afford to do research on what little Reason pays. Google isn’t cheap.
        Besides, you might discover things.

      3. But you don’t understand Sevo. Reason doesn’t pay enough for research. Google isn’t free you know.
        Besides, you might discover things…

    2. Is there some reason we should be concerned about this foundation?

      1. It wasn’t designed by a civil engineer.

        1. lol

          1. Chipper Morning Baculum|1.11.19 @ 11:00PM|#
            “lol”
            When will you grow up and move out of the basement?

            1. When the Section 8 list in his county opens up.

        2. Even if it was, did the city of Portland OR approve that title?

      2. Another part of his teachings was that all life is an illusion, and because of that all relationships were an illusion.

        Which teaching is more dangerous:
        – “kill few hundred infidels to make others fear”, or
        – “it doesn’t matter if few millions die because everything is an illusion”?

        1. That sounds like pretty standard Buddhism to me.

          -jcr

          1. Yes, and probably has common origins, but I’m not an expert in Hinduism / Buddhism / Krishna.* things.

            Folks subscribing to the illusion thesis may be nice in everyday life but I wouldn’t trust them with anything that has mass destruction potential.

          2. Did your 5 seconds of research tell you that it was standard buddhism? Does standard buddhism treat their founder as a God? Do they ask members to sign away all their assets to make it hard to leave? Do they have an army of lawyer a filing legal actions and take down notices? Hint. Dont go to the foundations website to get information on whether or not it is a cult.

        2. That comparison neatly sums up what the Dem and Gee-Oh-Pee Kleptocracy halves are all about. Bravo!

      3. Jeff. I can’t fit all of their their issues into a single sentence you’ll conveniently forget by tomorrow. Sorry.

        Keep defending cults.

        1. Meh, a cult is simply a start-up religion.

          1. This one is closer top scientology than not.

      4. chemjeff radical individualist|1.11.19 @ 10:02PM|#
        “Is there some reason we should be concerned about this foundation?”

        Why is it not surprising that lefties will support lefties with whacko connections?
        Perhaps it’s lefties lack of intellect.

        1. Jeff is strange. He supports economic terrorism against anyone who even refuses to bake cakes for gay marriage but defends a cult that is virulently anti gay because it is tied to a Democrat.

          1. JesseAz|1.11.19 @ 11:09PM|#
            “Jeff is strange.”
            You’re too kind. Jeff is a lefty, with all the intellectual gymnastics that requires.
            He is a fucking lefty ignoramus and should be recognized as such.

            1. How old is he? I think of him as an eight year old in a twelve year old’s body. Is he some dumb college kid?

              1. Standard Media Matters fifty-center. He’s paid to be here.

              2. I’m kind of hoping Jeff googled about SIF and is now a proud member.

                1. I’ve always assumed he was in something like that

      5. Sacramental Kool-Aid for Jesus?

      6. Well afaik it is the successor to folks who used to hang out at airports banging drums

    3. Huh. I thought she was Hindu like her mom.

      1. She “switched” right before she ran for Congress. Her dad is a great supporter of SIF and a crap ton of her donors are SIF.

        1. Looks like her supporters are actively ‘fixing’ her Wikipedia page and any linking pages.

          1. SIF is scientology lite in its “advertising” campaigns. Legal takedowns, web washing, etc.

    4. Jesus, not Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa

      1. Fucking Hare Krishna cult spinoffs.

  15. I got volunteered to spend a year in Vietnam. Apparently, per this article, I’m qualified to be a congressperson. Where’s my endorsement, reason?

    1. Well AOC only has bartending as a qualification. nttawwt.

      1. She’s also qualified to dance around braless in a tight t shirt.

  16. I like her anti-war stance. Doubt much else. Still would.

  17. Voice of humility? We’ve heard that one before.

  18. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

  19. Tulsi is anti war, pro environment, not obsessed with handouts like Hillary was to buy votes. I think she’ll do better than expected with the people that like Trump for his policies but can’t stand him as a human being.

    1. ErinS|1.12.19 @ 12:24AM|#
      “Tulsi is anti war, pro environment, not obsessed with handouts like Hillary was to buy votes. I think she’ll do better than expected with the people that like Trump for his policies but can’t stand him as a human being.”
      So those suffering from TDS will give up all principles to support a lefty twit?

      1. If she’s anti-war she sure isn’t showing it. She voluntarily joined the war machine, then used and continues to use that as a reason to give her power over people.

        If she was actually anti-war she’d be constantly apologizing for her actions in furthering war and asking forgiveness, not asking for more power and touting her war-mongering as a virtue and reason to vote for her.

        As it is, she just sounds like a rank opportunist.

    2. So she’ll be popular with the virtue-signaling style over substance crowd. Faint praise indeed.

    3. She has no chance against candidates with donors who have deep pockets, like Liz Warren and Kamala Harris. You need a national donor network and a grass roots organization that will get it done from New Hampshire to Iowa. Kamala Harris has been courting Silicon Valley donors for years. Liz Warren has been building a national donor network since Obama started his second term.

      Bernie Sanders had an advantage with name recognition in New Hampshire, which is within broadcasting distance of Vermont.

      Donald Trump had name recognition and the ability to make the media talk about him without having to pay them for the advertising.

      This lady from Hawaii could walk into the Democratic convention, and none of the delegates may even recognize her. She’ll be lucky to get consideration for a position in the new Democrat government, like Dept. of Veterans Affairs. You need name recognition before you can get a donor network or a grass roots organization, and being famous in Hawaii won’t guarantee anyone anywhere else in the country will care enough to arrest you for doing something awful.

      1. This lady from Hawaii could walk into the Democratic convention, and none of the delegates may even recognize her. She’ll be lucky to get consideration for a position in the new Democrat government, like Dept. of Veterans Affairs.

        That’s probably what she’s really shooting for, to be honest.

      2. I’ve got a feeling she already has a deal with Bernie in place. Colonel Sanders hasn’t announced his bid for the presidency yet, so he might instead announce that he won’t run and that he’s anointed Gabbard to carry his torch. Tis a possibility.

    4. Yep, I’m willing to keep an open mind about her at the moment.

      1. She was on team trump briefly in 2016.

        1. Interesting. Do have a link?

          The only think that I could find on it was her meeting with Trump in Nov 2016.
          “President-elect Trump asked me to meet with him about our current policies regarding Syria, our fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as other foreign policy challenges we face,” Gabbard said in a statement. “

  20. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  21. Anti-war, looks good in neoprene, I’d vote for it (in a Democrat primary).

  22. “Gabbard has earned her right to be critical of those conflicts. In 2004, she volunteered for a 12-month tour of duty in Iraq”

    I’ve never been anything short of respectful and grateful to those who volunteer for military service–even as I opposed the Iraq War.

    Regardless, the way this sentence is worded makes it sound like the rest of us might not have the right to be critical of those conflicts–and that’s horseshit.

    Maybe our heroes are too precious to be risked in conflicts that aren’t really in America’s best interests.

    1. Reason has been kinda weird about military service lately.

      Gillespie played the Chickenhawk card on a Viet Nam draft-dodger earlier this week, and now Boehm gets all tingly inside about a member of the National Guard who help subjugate Iraq.

      It’s almost as if Reason was judging the value of one’s military service, or lack thereof, on their political views….

  23. Gabbard has earned her right to be critical of those conflicts
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I find it hilarious Reason of all places is pushing the meme that only soldiers are allowed to have opinions on military matters. Does that mean we can now start googling backgrounds to see which articles wailing about army budget and interventionism we can now disregard? How about you Mr. Boehm? Not seeing any evidence you ever enlisted yet, maybe I can disregard this very article until you show your discharge certificate. Keep in mind this isn’t WWII and the vast majority of soldiers are noncombatants. I don’t think Mrs. Gabbard is the type that was hip firing dual LMGs at Charlie in the swamps of Nam’.

    1. I understand the criticism of “chicken-hawks” better than I understand the suggestion that we haven’t really earned the right to criticize a war unless we joined the military in wartime.

      I would never knowingly criticize a war to a veteran’s face because that would make me feel like I was doing Saddam Hussein’s job for him, you know? Who am I, Tokyo Rose? Jane Fonda? Demoralizing the enemy is a legitimate war aim. Far be it from me to do something like that to an American soldier on purpose.

      I wanted to be wrong about Iraq. I’ve never wanted America to lose a war. As an intellectual exercise, it’s a lot like what I say about Trump and his trade war with China. I’m as pro-free trade as somebody can be, but I want to be wrong. I hope what Trump is doing is wildly successful for the sake of the country and the American people.

      Do we not have a right to criticize trade barriers unless we bought an American made car? I don’t get that logic for a second.

      1. Is a soldier who volunteered to fight a war not responsible for that war?

        It is one thing to sign up in 2002, another to sign up in 2020.

        1. The reasons individuals volunteer to fight wars are as complicated as the individuals themselves.

          1. Example 1:

            I can’t get four people in my office to agree on where to get lunch half the time, but over a million soldiers joined the Confederate army for only one reason?

            Example 2:

            My uncle died of that weird form of leukemia people only get after they’ve been exposed to Agent Orange. He took all the courses and training necessary to be a medic and then dropped out of college–because he wanted to get drafted. He believed in the objectives of the Vietnam War. He opposed communism. He wanted to show his patriotism through his service. He was wiling to put his life at risk for his country.

            He was also a conscientious objector. He was willing to do almost anything for his country but lie, steal, commit adultery, worship idols, profane the Sabbath, take the Lord’s name in vain, covet, or kill. Ultimately he paid for his service with his life.

            1. I’d say that’s not the picture most people conjure up when they imagine what a patriotic kid who wanted to go to Vietnam looked like between 1968 and 1974. I think that’s why we conjure up images of the typical soldier or think of them as single minded groups. The complexities of all those individuals making up their individual minds for a multitude of reasons, many so complicated that the individuals themselves may not fully understand them–that’s too hard to make generalizations about. And some people seem to need to make generalizations.

              I’m not sure why. Maybe because it doesn’t mesh with the predominant narratives about how our government should be and why. If the government didn’t make generalizations about people and their motives, then they might have to start treating them as individuals with rights and freedoms that the government has no business violating. And we can’t just have 350 million people running around with rights and making choices for themselves from their own perspectives using their own motivations. Because, . . . um . . .

    2. As a VFW myself, i have the right to say her politics are largely shit, and she is dangerous for America.

      1. Correct me if I’m wrong but officers seem to be the ones that take giving orders in the military into political life.

        While leadership in politics might be a quality, most officers dont lead people. Most officers order people to do things and that is different than leading people.

  24. As wonderful as her stated stances might be on foreign policy and domestic surveillance and prohibition may be, we can’t have another economic illiterate in the White House. And hard pass on a candidate who doesn’t respect all constitutional rights.

  25. I can’t see how she can win against Trump on this particular issue. Trump’s position on foreign war is the same as her. He wants to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan too and got demonised by war monger politicians on both sides of the isle. Are the left going to demonise her the same way they did Trump for saying the exact same thing. I doubt it.

    1. Well Trump is literally Hitler and she isn’t so while they may wish the same outcome her motives are pure while his are evil. It’s really not that complicated.

  26. She may well be the least offensive turd in the overflowing toilet that will be the Democratic primary race.

  27. How much press would these democrats (socialists) get if they were old, ugly, and flat chested?

    1. Bernie gets lots of press. Biden too.

      1. True, but these bimbos are first year, or not even elected yet, newbies, getting coverage like your professional pimp example.

  28. Tulsi, Kamala, Liawatha, Bernie, Biden. Hildog??

    Pussy parade.

    1. 🙂

  29. I would not vote for her but I would …. uh … I would be happy to ….. hmmm ….. you know.

  30. Gabbard-Giffords 2020!

    1. No campaigning during the week of their Period after they sync up their Period cycles.

  31. Aaaaand, if she supports pulling out of Syria I bet everyone who bashed Trump over it will swoon and say, ‘a-otay!’

  32. She was interviewed by Maddow, eh?

    I didn’t check but I bet Maddow was against pulling out of Syria. What would she say if Gabbard pushed for it during an interview?

    1. Lefties have a real problem because some Presidential candidates are against ending endless wars and Gabbard is for ending some of the endless wars.

      Either way, Trump actually did something about endless wars and troops in Syria are leaving and Afghanistan and Iraq should be soon.

  33. Is she a Russian stooge, too?

  34. Nice story, I guess. She’ll provide a dissenting voice when it comes to foreign policy and not much else. She’s a leftist progressive and there’s no reason for a libertarian to get excited about her candidacy. Even Trump, Hillary or Bernie support issues that libertarians support but that doesn’t make them libertarians.

  35. The acne thing is unfortunate. Still would.

    1. All day.

  36. Rotsa ruck. Global Warmunism Millerites are what got the Dems tossed out even after G. Waffen Bush repeated Daddy Bush and Herbert Hoover’s trick of bearing the economy senseless with prohibition, asset forfeiture and tax laws. Thermometers insist the temperature is not rising. Even the Millerites confess they jimmy, fudge and alter the raw data to make their models look better. But no amount of intimidation, bribery or social pressure is going to change a thermometer reading any more than a stadium filled with wishful proponents of telekinesis will make a needle spin in an evacuated dome on a concrete block at the 50 yard line.

    1. I wish they were Millerites. The Millerites just used persuasion. The only thing to fear from persuasion is that I might change my mind.

      The environmentalists she’s representing want to use the government to force us all to live by their religion.

      Believe in transubstantiation all you want. Just don’t bring the coercive power of government down on me and my livelihood if I don’t share in your religious beliefs.

      It’s not the religion. It’s the authoritarianism.

  37. She’ll probably do well assuming she isn’t a complete moron like Occluded-Cortex (Ocasio-Cortez) is.

    She is the only candidate on the Democratic party side who isn’t a completely empty suit. She is also the only member running in their party with military service of any kind in a war that has now lasted two decades.

    She may be a complete socialist policy wise, but compared to who she is running against in the primary does that matter?

  38. Being in favor of “peace” is not the same thing as being opposed to military interventionism. Everyone says they want peace. The interventionists claim that peace is what they’re trying to accomplish. I want a candidate who will promise to bring our military home and stay out of other peoples’ conflicts, even if that means that their wars will continue.

    1. I want a candidate who will promise to bring our military home and stay out of other peoples’ conflicts, even if that means that their wars will continue.

      I’ll also fully accept a candidate who makes no such promises and does so seemingly on a whim.

      1. A candidate can’t do that. We’d have to wait until after he was elected.

  39. She has the most authoritarian, absolutist position on gun control. I didn’t think Reason would advocate for someone with a complete disregard for 2A rights.

  40. She’ll get crushed by either Harris or Warren. I don’t think she’ll even win her state.

    America puts out some truly terrible female political leaders. That’s to be expected from a nation that says Michelle Obama is its most admired female figure.

    Oh, and some women in this country are bona fide hyenas. Look at the female compatriots of Harvey Weinsten who enabled his years of abuse. Look at how the women’s march turned on their own. American liberals whine all day abotu diversity and elect the worst of their group to represent them.

  41. I am thinking that a lottery based system rather than elections would be better. I believe the Greeks had a system like that.

    500 random citizens could not do worse than the clown show we have now.

    1. Totally agree. Toughest part with that is actually getting a system like that going in parallel with the existing ‘election system’ so that it can compete with and gradually undermine the election system by actually proving that it is better. Because the Athenians were right about one thing re elections – elections lead to oligarchy and therefore oligarchs and wannabe oligarchs will always financially support ‘elections’ and undermine any/all alternatives.

  42. you’d better hope she’s NOT a strong candidate. her stance on our war addiction is commendable, as is her position on pot, but beyond that, she’s a pretty typical left-leaning progressive. her disrespect for individual liberty and contempt for classical liberal values make her a bad bet, no matter how refreshing her take on certain issues may be.

    1. I want Tulsi ti win the Dem nomination, not be elected president. Although I’dpefer her over more than a few Republicans

  43. Obama wrote a book about doing drugs and selling drugs but spent 8 years putting people legally using medical marijuana in federal penitentiaries. He purportedly beat Hilary in the primaries because he opposed the war on Iraq and would shut down Guantanamo. But he spent 8 years waging war all over the planet and Gitmo is still there. If I could believe that this woman would actually end our endless wars and drug prohibition I’d vote for her and accept the climate change bullshit and economic stupidity as collateral damage. But she’s a progressive and war and prohibition are the fundamental basis of progressive ideology. At this point I’d rather take my chances with orange Hitler. At least he’s an ideological agnostic and has gotten a few good things done if only by accident. If she gets into the primaries and forces the Democrats to talk about Obama’s wars, that Trump seems inclined to end, she could be of some value. But I thought the same thing about Ron Paul and Bush’s wars. Wishful thinking as it turned out. I really think the biggest threat to the war party is Trump. He’s not a politician, he doesn’t give a shit what the media thinks, and he doesn’t like these wars. He could actually wind this shit down at least for the short term. If only by accident.

  44. She talks like she has principles and an ideology.

    If she still believes them she obviously has not been in politics long enough.

  45. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  46. Boehm, what’s your stance on her ‘homosexual extremist’ comments and her stance on gay marriage?

  47. I’m thinking she gets a speech, and a look at a VP slot for 2024. We shall see.

  48. https://cnn.it/2FrxEfk

    Turns out she has actively anti-gay skeletons in her closet. She claims to be reformed now, but who knows?

    “Gabbard’s father ran The Alliance for Traditional Marriage, a political action committee aimed at opposing pro-gay lawmakers and legislation that organized and spent more than $100,000 to pass an amendment in 1998 that gave the Hawaii state legislature power to “reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” The amendment to the state’s constitution passed.
    Gabbard was 17 at the time of the vote and cited working with her father and the organization during her run for the state legislature in Hawaii four years later when she was age 21. Gabbard would win her race, becoming the youngest woman elected to the Hawaii state legislature.
    Gabbard’s father Mike was a prominent anti-gay activist in Hawaii. He was also the director of Stop Promoting Homosexuality and also served on the steering committees of the National Campaign to Protect Marriage and the Hawaii-based coalition, Save Traditional Marriage. He also once hosted an anti-gay radio show, Let’s Talk Straight Hawaii. ”

    That’s not very libertarian and it’s certainly not ‘progressive’ Democrat. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

    1. “That’s not very libertarian and it’s certainly not ‘progressive’ Democrat.”

      Well, neither is selling political access for donations when you’re Sec of State, but the Ds managed to ignore that.

    2. I don’t know about her past… But she’s been talking the talk of being a batshit crazy progressive Democrat lately! I’ll take her word for it.

      If she happens to hate The Fags secretly, I don’t think it matters much, as she’ll obviously be towing the line if in office. Which will never happen anyway, so I’m not worrying about it.

    3. The Dem establishment is gearing up to go to war against Tulsi Gabbard, using talking points like this.

      But the fact is she supported gay marriage BEFORE Obama did!

      The big question is why the Dem establishment is so against her. Seems like it’s because the pro-war establishment is losing their former grip on both parties.

    4. So, her father is gay. That should be a net plus for her among Democrats.

  49. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……

    http://www.geosalary.com

  50. Gawd. This is going to make for a horrible election season… Reason writers fawning all over insane prog Democrats because they like Mexicans, ass sex, and weed… Ugh.

    1. Come on, it will be fun. Dem primary is going to be a nightmare and Trump will cruise to victory. I’m relatively new here, but to me “Reason” just is what it is.

  51. It’s a little difficult to get excited about a foreign non-interventionist who is a domestic authoritarian.

  52. Hopefully the true antiwar Democrats will flock to Gabbard’s side in the primaries and the remainder will be split among the many other less principled candidates.

  53. Comments made by Tulsi Gabbard:

    2000 – “”This war of deception and hatred against my mom is being waged by homosexual activists because they know, that if elected, she will not allow them to force their values down the throats of the children in our schools,” Gabbard is quoted as saying.”

    2004 – “”To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” Gabbard said at a hearing opposing civil unions back then. “As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.””

  54. The Hawaii congresswoman will be a voice for humility in U.S. foreign policy.

    On what do you base that statement? Actions? Or words?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.