President Biden?
- This topic has 321 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Biden won three more primaries: Mississippi, Missouri and Michigan.
So it appears to be Biden as the Democratic Party candidate against Trump
The final nail in Sanders coffin.
What will all those radical progressives do now?
There is something fishy about this primary election, several days ago, Joe Biden was at the bottom of the barrel, and from one day to another he became prominent, it looks like again the DNC ( and Tomas Perez ) is counting votes for their preferred candidate which is Joe Biden like they did in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. It was known before the election that the Democratic Party leadership had purchased software which was easy to be hacked by themselves. The UN and OAS should send election observers to the USA in the same way that they send election observers to Latin America
I think Donald Trump is going to be re-elected again because most of the followers of Bernie Sanders are not going to vote for Joe Biden, the same thing happened in 2016, most of them did not vote for Hillary Clinton, and some of them voted for Donald Trump
Most peoples voted for Joe Biden because according to them, he is the only candidate who can remove Donald Trump, they do not care about the other social issues advocated by Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, even more, she is against wars and regimes change
“…Tulsi Gabbard, even more, she is against wars…”
Another opportunistic wannabe…
This is part of her biography in Wikipedia, She might be opportunistic, but she has said that she opposes wars. I know someone who was an officer at the army and he received many medals, and then, he became a Marxist-Humanist
Foreign affairs
On January 18, 2017, Gabbard went on a one-week “fact-finding mission” to Syria and Lebanon, during which Gabbard met various political and religious leaders from Syria and Lebanon as well as regular citizens from both sides of the war, and also had two unplanned meetings with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.<sup id=”cite_ref-199″ class=”reference”>[199]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-200″ class=”reference”>[200]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-201″ class=”reference”>[201]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-202″ class=”reference”>[202]</sup> In April 2017 Gabbard expressed scepticism about claims that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians in Khan Shaykhun and which were followed by a military attack against Syria by the United States. Gabbard said, “successful prosecution of Assad (at the International Criminal Court) w[ould] require the collection of evidence from the scene of the incident” and that she “support[ed] the United Nations’ efforts in this regard”.<sup id=”cite_ref-Greenwood_19-1″ class=”reference”>[19]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-:3_20-1″ class=”reference”>[20]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-Nation_2017_203-0″ class=”reference”>[203]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-guardian_2019_204-0″ class=”reference”>[204]</sup> In a 2018 interview with <i>The Nation</i>, Gabbard said the United States had “been waging a regime change war in Syria since 2011.”<sup id=”cite_ref-205″ class=”reference”>[205]</sup> Gabbard has called Assad “… a brutal dictator. Just like Saddam Hussein.”<sup id=”cite_ref-206″ class=”reference”>[206]</sup>
Gabbard also criticized the Obama Administration, in more than 20 appearances on the Fox News network between 2013 and 2017, for “refusing” to say that the “real enemy” of the United States is “radical Islam” or “Islamic extremism.”<sup id=”cite_ref-207″ class=”reference”>[207]</sup>
On December 20, 2019, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act<sup id=”cite_ref-208″ class=”reference”>[208]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-209″ class=”reference”>[209]</sup> that she introduced in 2017<sup id=”cite_ref-210″ class=”reference”>[210]</sup> became law as part of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, § 1228<sup id=”cite_ref-211″ class=”reference”>[211]</sup> to prohibit the Department of Defense from “knowingly providing weapons or any other form of support to Al Qaeda” or other terrorist groups or any individual or group affiliated with any such organization.<sup id=”cite_ref-212″ class=”reference”>[212]</sup>
Gabbard was a five-year “term member”<sup id=”cite_ref-213″ class=”reference”>[213]</sup> of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).<sup id=”cite_ref-214″ class=”reference”>[214]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-215″ class=”reference”>[215]</sup> When asked about her involvement in it, she said that while many in CFR did not share her worldview, “If we only sit in rooms with people who we agree with, then we won’t be able to bring about the kind of change that we need to see.”<sup id=”cite_ref-216″ class=”reference”>[216]</sup>
Gabbard criticized the U.S. military’s 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike (which killed high-level Iranian General Qasem Soleimani) as an act of war by President Trump and a violation of the U.S. Constitution, arguing that the president did not have Congressional authorization for this act.<sup class=”reference”>[217]</sup>
Nuclear weapons and arms race[edit]
Gabbard co-sponsored legislation that would prohibit the first-use of nuclear weapons.<sup id=”cite_ref-183″ class=”reference”>[182]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-184″ class=”reference”>[183]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-185″ class=”reference”>[184]</sup>
Gabbard decries powerful politicians who “beat the drums of war and ratchet up tensions” between the U.S. and nuclear-armed countries”, dragging the country toward a New Cold War arms race, thereby bringing “the front lines … to our doorstep, as we sit on the precipice of nuclear war.” She notes that nuclear strategists say “we are at a greater risk of nuclear war than we ever have been before.”<sup id=”cite_ref-Launch_186-0″ class=”reference”>[185]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-187″ class=”reference”>[186]</sup>
Gabbard has introduced legislation to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars for weapons that violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty<sup id=”cite_ref-188″ class=”reference”>[187]</sup> and has expressed disappointment no moderators at the Democratic presidential primary debates have “raised the issues or asked a question related to the most existential threat we face in this country.”<sup id=”cite_ref-Launch_186-1″ class=”reference”>[185]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-189″ class=”reference”>[188]</sup>
Regime change interventions[edit]
In a 2018 interview with <i>The Intercept</i>, Gabbard said U.S. efforts at regime change “have ended up worse off for the people of those countries and have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people.” <i>The Intercept</i> described her as “an outspoken critic of U.S. involvement in the Middle East from the disastrous Iraq War to NATO’s 2011 intervention in Libya that followed Arab Spring protests against the brutal regime of Moammar Gadhafi.”<sup id=”cite_ref-intercept_172-1″ class=”reference”>[172]</sup> She has also called for an end to the nearly two-decades-long U.S. war in Afghanistan.<sup id=”cite_ref-190″ class=”reference”>[189]</sup> In her February 2, 2019 campaign launch, Gabbard called on everyone to take a stand against what she described as the “neolibs and neocons” from both parties promoting regime change.<sup id=”cite_ref-Launch_186-2″ class=”reference”>[185]</sup> In a campaign email released later that week, she wrote that “media giants ruled by corporate interests … in the pocket of the ‘establishment war machine‘” deploy journalism to “silence debate and dissent.”<sup id=”cite_ref-:2_191-0″ class=”reference”>[190]</sup>
According to <i>Rolling Stone</i> columnist Matt Taibbi, Gabbard’s position is “not as has been represented in most press accounts. … She’s not an isolationist. She’s simply opposed to bombing the crap out of, and occupying, foreign countries for no apparent positive strategic objective, beyond enriching contractors”.<sup id=”cite_ref-192″ class=”reference”>[191]</sup>
Well, she’s clearly ‘won’ you over. 😉
As of Indian origin and hindu, she supports India’s nationalist president Modi.
Pro-Modi elements of the Hindu-American diaspora in the U.S. such as the Overseas Friends of the BJP, the American chapter of the Bharatiya Janata Party have donated generously to her campaigns.
The Hindu American Foundation is a prominent advocacy organization of Hindu-Americans with strong ties to Gabbard. In a 2014 Atlanta speech, Gabbard said she and her team are in touch with HAF on a weekly, if not daily, basis. In 2016, the HAF lobbied against the replacement of the word “Indian” with “South Asian” in middle-school history textbooks in California, arguing that the change was essentially an erasure of India itself. These efforts were protested by South Asian academics and activists belonging to India’s minority groups, who said that those on the side of the HAF sought to whitewash California’s history textbooks to present a nativist, blemish-free view of how the Hindu caste system was enforced in India.
The Sangh Parivar is a network of religious, political, paramilitary, and student groups that subscribe to the Hindu supremacist, exclusionary ideology known as Hindutva. Historian Vijay Prashad refers to their collective movement as “Yankee Hindutva,”
At least 105 current and former officers and members of U.S. Sangh affiliates, and their families, have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Gabbard’s campaigns since 2011. Gabbard’s ties to Hindu nationalists in the United States run so deep that the newspaper Telegraph India in 2015 christened her the Sangh’s American mascot. Since 2013, Gabbard has attended conferences across the United States organized by Sangh affiliates
In December 2013, she opposed House Resolution 417, which urged India to protect “the rights and freedoms of religious minorities” and referred to incidents of mass violence against minority Muslims that had taken place under Modi’s watch. Gabbard later told the press that “there was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002.”
She is a supporter and advocate for the Hindu nationalist version of the Zionist AIPAC.
She is a wolf in sheep’s clothing
Dave, I am not saying that I am supporting her, I do not support any political candidate in any country
According to this writer Biden is a dementia suffering gift to Trump.
There are rumours that once Biden has tucked Sanders well and truly away, Biden may well be replaced at the convention, under some pretext or other.
Or that the choice for VP and secretary of states will not be his and that will be crucial since they will be given inordinate free rein on policies with little interference from Biden.
He will be a one-term president, so again the VP should be seen as his successor.
Those who know the most about his senility are actually those insiders within his campaign and the Democratic establishment.
His writers do not give him long speeches because they know he meanders off, he is not scheduled to very many afternoon engagements as like most of us old men, he needs to nap, but in his interactions, he can’t respond in a civil manner to innocuous questions from the public…a grumpy old man.
So the presidential contest is between one doo-lally politician against another gaa-gaa politician…and still the American voter cannot see through the charade.
I’ll be watching the no-audience debate between Biden and Sanders this evening with interest and hoping Sanders takes his gloves off and says some home-truths about Biden, something Bernie has never done. Or is he still very futilely hoping that Biden might adopt some of his policies and so remains diplomatic? I fear the latter.
The rumours are that the Vice President might be Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, a continuation of Barrack Obama policies. Most black peoples are voting for Joe Biden because they see him as a continuation of Barrack Obama. I don’t think that Bernie Sanders has the balls to run as an independent or as a candidate for the Green Party or the DSA
“I don’t think that Bernie Sanders has the balls to run as an independent or as a candidate for the Green Party or the DSA”
I don’t think that is has ever been his strategy, Marcos.
What i think he is hoping is that he can bargain the support of his impressive grassroot support to campaign for Biden against Trump, if Biden adopts in some form or another M4A.
AOC earlier let the cat out the bag that she would accept some sort of phased opt-in version as a necessary compromise, if need be.
But i doubt very much Sanders can convince the establishment Democrats to endorse any of his policies. (Maybe the $15 minimum wage?)
As i said, the debate will be illuminating.
As for VP it may well be Amy Klobucher as he has hinted it will be a woman (less likely is Kamala Harris after her spat in the early debate with Biden), and Buttigieg will get some Secretary of State job.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.