It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MSNBC vs Tulsi Gabbard

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire


pass the OFF Act to end our addiction to fossil fuels and transition the country to a 100% clean energy economy by 2035


100% renewables only by 2035. No nuclear. No fossil fuel. Zero fossil fuel exports and zero fossil fuel imports.


The OFF Act does exactly that: it keeps fossil fuels in the ground. In the fight to stop the greedy fossil fuel industry from wrecking our climate


So not only can we not use fossil fuels, we can't sell it either, so the entire fossil fuel industry would be destroyed by 2035, it would be illegal. Nuclear would also be gone.
gabbard.house.gov...

So if you have a car that consumes gasoline you would need to buy a new one or stop driving. I consider that jumping off the cliff extreme left, how about you?




posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

What is even better is Snoop Dog was not an artist and had no music at the time she claims she was getting high listening to his music.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I didn't see it that way. He seemed to be really pestering her about some stuff that only real policy wonks would even know about. The typical Colbert viewer is simply not that informed so I saw no point in discussing it. His demeanor and line of questioning was not consistent with how most politicians are treated on that type of show.

The other thing is that this interview was FOUR MONTHS AGO, long before her meeting Assad became a talking point against her after the debates. Almost like a trial balloon to see how this might play out...



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Tulsi is a genuine progressive. The DNC establishment hates progressives because they are corporatists. Look at the progressive wing civil war vs Pelosi. Party leadership talks progressively because their base is now increasingly young progressives they need to motivate in order to win.
Gabbard will never, ever, ever get the nomination because she public embarrassed the DNC by resigning over the HRC-DNC shenanigans. She's toast as far as the party leadership is concerned. Look at her public comments; she sacrificed her national party career to keep her integrity. Maybe after there is a party split or coup of leadership.

And while I disagree with many of her policy stances, she does have integrity, and actually has a reasonably solid history of working across the aisle and not being incendiary. She is for a good deal of common-sense things and is willing to buck the party line and leadership, like stricter background checks, against regime-change wars, but still considered a hawk on anti-terrorism, pushed VA reform. She's a harsh critic of Trump, but was one of the few D's willing to meet with him and try to hash things out during the post-election transition.

She's a true -blue prog "believer". I think that makes her wrong, but she's not a mindless part of the machine or a zealot. I have a lot of respect for her.

Trump should have her meet monthly and find as much common ground as possible, because she is one of the few rational voices on that side of the aisle. Figure out a border patch. Figure out infrastructure. Figure out budget cuts, including to the military budget. And do it with her and as many actual human beings left among the Congress-critters. Completely sidestep McConnell and Pelosi and the career politicians who can't break the paradigm. Baby steps. doesn't have to be comprehensive. Just pick up what everyone sane agrees on, regardless of politics. Craft clean bills. Regulate financial arms and Big Pharma. Term-limits. Annual independent audits for all congresscritters and their immediate family members. Fund expansion of courts at the border to process asylum-seekers and eliminate the backup. Fund better conditions while they are waiting in that backup in the meantime. Eliminate obvious waste in government spending. Agree on dollar for dollar cuts on military and federal domestic budgets. End the nearly 20 yr war which will be endless. Bring each one by one straight to the people with a small bipartisan group willing to actually work to fix things. And then say, "we've all put aside issues we don't agree on and have agreed to X,Y, Z, but R and D leadership in Congress won't rally behind it. Call you congress-critter today and tell them you agree sith our common sense solution in a clean bill"



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Thanks for that quick summary Occ. Yes that does sound drastic. Thtat goal of 2035 would not have sounded so drastic had they been established back ihn the 70s. Back then, the Greening people believed that if enough Americans pushed consumerwise and would not buy more gas guzzlers and installed solar and companies took over developing wind farms and other ''green'' forms of energy production then it would all work out and we would be off of the centralized energy grid that is now owned and run by the major corporations.

But almost none of that took place.

I"m a gradualist I suppose. The only way a goal of 2035 can be reached would be by force, forcing people out of their petrol cars and such and that I am against.

I suppose that the drastic goals of thie Green thing you talk about could easily be like when two people try to make a deal.
How much do you want for your car
10000 buck, what will you offer
1000 bucks and then they meet somewhere in the middle.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Same here. I love the idea of slowly using less fossil fuels. I do not agree with zero nuclear, I believe in better nuclear and researching thorium plants. 2035 is simply unrealistic, and what would that do to the economy to simply have zero use/export of fossil fuels, shutting an entire sector down. I think that's instant recession.

The 2035 wouldn't be up for debate or be bargained with, it would be codified in law. 2035 was not the starting point to start debate and come up with a law that was reasonable, 2035 is the date in the bill she sponsored.
edit on 2-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

People forget also that if you get rid of 100% of our fossile fuels, you also get rid of 9% of our GDP.

As well as a few hundred thousand (REALLY good paying) direct jobs, a few million indirect jobs, millions of suppliers jobs, etc.

The Bakken alone, at 2 million barrels of oil a day and 10 million mcf of natural gas a day, has a supply that they estimate is going to last about 600 years.

But yea... let's keep it underground.

/facepalm


edit on 2-8-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Exactly. That is why I consider her so far left she jumped off the cliff. She is not a moderate, she is an extreme dangerous lefty. She is just such a good talker and doesn't put her extreme ideas in the public light, she puts them in bills to be passed as laws and then talks as if she is against green deals ... as she tries to pass hers.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lumenari

Exactly. That is why I consider her so far left she jumped off the cliff. She is not a moderate, she is an extreme dangerous lefty. She is just such a good talker and doesn't put her extreme ideas in the public light, she puts them in bills to be passed as laws and then talks as if she is against green deals ... as she tries to pass hers.


I believe I think like most people that we will eventually get off of fossil fuels as technology advances in the energy industry.

But we need to have the technology first and we're honestly just not there yet.

And this is from someone who lives off-grid.




posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, it was back then before those particular talking points became more well known in the debates. And that's the thing.
Gabbard now has interviews, this one included, to demonstrate that her position is more than just the soundbite talking points that are so easily pulled out of a hat to injure an opponent.

In effect, that interview allowed her to get out in front of that bullet that would be fired at her later on. By comparison, those that attack her in such a bullish manner as she was attacked in the debate only serves to show just how shallow those others really are.

I"m not a policy wonk but I knew about her meeting with Assad long ago. She is learning how to face down criticism in a cool and collected manner without being blown out of the water with mere flustered retorts. I see her heading forward in the next debate and I personally hope that she for now is happy running in the middle of the pack waiting for the stretch to make her spurt.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Truth is irrelevant. People believe what the MSM tells them to believe.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think that that bill will not be passed. But what it does do, is offer a goal to be reached in a time frame set by both parties in both houses of Congress. Hopefully both conservatives and liberals can agree on that.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



Truth is irrelevant. People believe what the MSM tells them to believe.


But not you? But not me? Certainly not most of us who visit ATS. That is why we visit ATS, to dig beneath the msm bullcrap.

But you know what? Believing that people believe what the msm tells them is not only a cop out but a serious miscalculation of people in general.

Say that to a general bloke walking down the street and he will tell you to bugger off. He will tell you, possibly with a loogie in your face or a punch in the snoot that he is a free thinker, a person who believes what he wants to believe.

JUst like you and I like to believe that of ourselves. I think we are all subject to the half truths that surround us everyday, and as well, a product of those. Supposing that somehow either of us has managed to free ourselves from those influences seems to me to be kind of wishful thinking.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert


And while I disagree with many of her policy stances, she does have integrity, and actually has a reasonably solid history of working across the aisle and not being incendiary. She is for a good deal of common-sense things and is willing to buck the party line and leadership, like stricter background checks, against regime-change wars, but still considered a hawk on anti-terrorism, pushed VA reform. She's a harsh critic of Trump, but was one of the few D's willing to meet with him and try to hash things out during the post-election transition.


My point as well. If you are eventually going to have to work with the other side of the Aisle, Gabbard is far better suited than almost any other Democrat. Are there really any Blue Dogs anymore?

As Repubicans, we should try to encourage those kind of Dems as best we can. Hell she's already being tarred as Russian Influenced for her attacks on Harris.

You don't have to agree with the other side all the time. You just need to find common goals you both want. Sooner or later each party will need the others help on major legislation. America works best when we can actually do that.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Edumakated


She is getting the Ron Paul treatment....


She sure is. Even worse since it's the DNC MSM doing her in.

I honestly think she has more support from the Right than the Left.

What a scary concept for both Parties.

Imagine a Rand Paul/Tulsi Gabbard ticket in 2024. Either one could headline IMO.



Rumor has it she’s going to run third party since the Dems are marginalizing her. It would be sweet justice if she siphons votes from the Dems and costs them the election. I’d prefer Tulsi over Trump, but wouldn’t be opposed to four more years of Trump rather than one of those extreme leftists.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The difference is they trust the MSM. We believe sources we trust. There is no cop out, I see it every day. Most people do not question the MSM. It's the media, if you can't trust them who can you trust .. that's their thinking.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

What policies of Gabbi do you prefer over Trump?



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The difference is they trust the MSM. We believe sources we trust. There is no cop out, I see it every day. Most people do not question the MSM. It's the media, if you can't trust them who can you trust .. that's their thinking.


Can you see the fallacy in that first sentence? They trust who they trust and you trust who you trust. Then you say most people don't question the msm. Likewise, do conservatives question the conservative media? Not much by some of the posters I have spoken with here. For that matter, how many Trump supporters question Trump? Around here at least again I do not see many. I'm asking in earnestness here Occ, because it seems to me to be the same thing.

It's us as individuals and our ability to think for ourselves. I was once a strong liberal and have found that those I trusted in many cases were either lying or just wrong. Likewise I was once a fervent fundamentalist, believing what my conservative leaders said all the way.

What Im trying to get at here is the msm is certainly a pop culture mouthpiece and certainly it promotes the main stream culture it profits from, but this notion of just blaming everything on them is blown out of proportion and Mr. Trump is using it to is own advantage by turning it into an absolute enemy all the while setting himself up as a beacon of truth.
And to me and many others that is completely laughable.



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

It appears she a Russian agent now.

www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

I've gotten the impression she's good at being who people want her to be, depending on the crowd she's talking too. Just another politician and nothing special and certainly no moderate by any stretch.

She was Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016 and then she resigned to endorse Sanders for 2016. She's way far Left and I think she's way left of what she admits.

Her following I think has more to do with her being attractive and former military. People should be asking her why she supported Sanders and the extreme Left socialists.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join