Gabbard Would Outperform Sanders In Debate With Trump

Tulsi Gabbard would have a considerable edge in debate against Trump which Sanders would not have. The ONLY exception would be voters rabidly pro-Sanders or ANYONE-but-Trump. For all other voters, in debate with Trump, Sanders would struggle with certain topics which most Americans find highly important.

Russiagate and Sanders. The first example of this came this week. Hillary Clinton went on a talk show and tied Sanders to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, most of us have little interest in what Clinton has to say on any subject, so this should be a non-issue. However, it was picked up by the Russiagate media and talked about widely.

Now the biggest problem with this subject is the fact that Sanders has not opposed Russiagate. He has propagated it. He has stated publicly that Russia helped his campaign in 2016 without his knowledge. He has previously accused his own supporters in 2016 of being influenced by Russian propaganda if they did so much as question Hillary Clinton.

What this means is that Sanders has bound his own hands regarding Russiagate. So far the media on this subject has gone easy on Sanders. You may think not but trust me, it will absolutely get worse. Sanders has not faced any accusations regarding Russiagate in DNC debates. Trump will absolutely bring up the subject, even if only in an attempt to deflect accusations against him by the media. This will place Sanders on the defensive because the questions will come not only from Trump but also neoliberal AND conservative media. Trump has denied any political ties to Russia and can point to how hawkish he has been against Russia. Sanders has no effective defense, since he has promoted the Russiagate narrative and claims that Russia helped him in 2016.

Russiagate and Gabbard. Gabbard would not have this problem. She makes her foreign policy stance very clear. She will work toward diplomacy and easing tensions with other countries, including Russia. The risk of maintaining those tensions is too great to allow them to increase further. Aside from wild-eyed schizophrenic talking heads who see Russians in their closets and refrigerators, there has been no accusation of Gabbard having any ties to Russia and those claims cannot be in any way quantified rationally. I’m sure Rachel Maddow will try, though.

Election integrity. Another issue on which Gabbard has the upper hand is her defense of election integrity. It has been absolutely proven that the DNC committed election fraud in 2016, with Hillary Clinton at the helm. Trump will absolutely bring that subject up. Sanders will have no defense on the subject at all. Not only did he campaign for Clinton in 2016 but he has been completely silent regarding election fraud in the primary up to this very day.

Gabbard, on the other hand, stepped down from the DNC vice chair position to protest election fraud, did NOT campaign for Clinton, has been publicly critical regarding the DNC and openly opposed Clinton only weeks ago. She also has announced that she will not be running for her Congressional seat again, so the DNC holds absolutely no power over her political future, as far as we know at this time.

Foreign policy. On foreign policy, Trump would likely not even challenge Gabbard. While he has failed at his campaign promises of ending wars and easing tensions with allegedly hostile leaders, he can point to efforts he has made. Gabbard also shows she will meet with those leaders and states the absolute goal of ending wars. Trump can absolutely challenge Sanders on foreign policy because Sanders has only offered platitudes on foreign policy. He has not offered any specific policies, goals or methods for his foreign policies.

Healthcare. Trump’s healthcare policies have been an absolute tragedy, leaving millions without medical insurance coverage of any kind while insurance and medical costs have continued to rise drastically. The one thing he can point to is that he eliminated mandatory private coverage and the penalty for not being insured. He will use the last part as a weapon against both Sanders and Gabbard, who both support universal healthcare.

With Gabbard, she openly states she supports universal healthcare with no private insurance involved for basic care. She does support the availability of supplemental care through private insurance, which is consistent with most countries that have universal healthcare. Much of her proposed healthcare plan would be paid for by reducing military spending. That reduction would be constant, not affected by stock market performance.

With Sanders, his plan also has the same components. However, he has been less prone to discuss the supplemental insurance aspect, which can be construed as an attempt to hide that fact. His plan is largely financed through a tax on stock market trades. Problem is, the amount available would decline if and when the stock market declines. Which the stock market is poised to do precipitously. He states he would decrease defense spending but without a plan in place for reducing conflicts, that would be difficult to justify and accomplish.

Debate style. One has to look at debate styles and behavior. On his own, Trump goes on tangents, we all know this. However, if you recall the RNC debates in 2016, he tends to remain rather composed and on the offensive at all times.

Sanders can be put on the defensive easily. He does try and keep a strong focus on the issues but can become visibly shaken. Trump has the tendency to change subjects and use more personal attacks, which tends to put Sanders on the defensive and he is rather consistent about it. When faced with subjects for which he actually has to defend himself, he stutters a lot.

Gabbard is a lot harder to shake. She can go on the offensive very easily. She goes into debate well prepared regarding her opponent. That is, in addition to being well versed on the issues. On top of that, she thinks on her feet and can transition without blinking an eye. She can face an aggressive opponent down with a smile on her face, never show fear and not stutter a single time.

Between Sanders and Gabbard in debate against Trump or any aggressive opponent, I would definitely say Gabbard would fare much better. Sanders fosters the image of the grandfather figure focused on domestic policy. Gabbard projects the image of a warrior, ready to fight the Establishment while working to ease international tensions. In a world currently at war, with raging international tensions, highly aggressive characters and forces in our political parties and a blatantly dishonest, adversarial corporate media, at this time the warrior/diplomat is what this country sorely needs and the one who will fare far better in debate in this environment.

Prove Me Wrong. Convince Me.

This article is directed specifically toward Bernie supporters.

I have made a number of statements that I am not convinced Bernie is nearly as anti-war as he claims to be. Apparently I am not the only one. This article from CounterPunch from April of this year shows they are not convinced, either. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/

Still, I remain open minded to new information. Just before starting this article, I did a short web search and found nothing which convinces me that my view is incorrect. However, we all know that censorship is a real thing, so maybe there are things I have not seen. I certainly have not seen any convincing statements shared on social media, where it would surely be used to contradict my statements.

No matter what I or other anti-war activists have to say, Bernie supporters absolutely insist with their very last breath that Bernie is anti-war, anti-regime change.

So, this is your chance. Prove me wrong. Fully convince me that my view is incorrect and Bernie is fully committed to ending the wars we are in, not starting any new wars, not going to endorse regime change operations, that he is against the sanctions which are killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in other countries.

It has to be proof. I will not be swayed by vague rhetoric. I need direct quotes. I need video evidence. I need current policy positions on general foreign policy. Show me something proving that Bernie has literally stated he will enact policies which do any of what is stated above. Convince me. Convince yourself. Remove all doubt.

Here’s what I will not accept- I will not accept excuses. I will not accept your opinions or insults. When you must resort to that, you have nothing else to offer of substance. I will not listen to how any politician can lie. We all know this but if there is no promise, no specific policy stance, there is no reason to believe there will be any effort. There is nothing to use to hold an official’s feet to the fire if they can respond, “I never said that.”

“No more wars.” That was one line uttered in 2016. Something to realize this does NOT mean is that there will be FEWER wars. The number can remain the same but locations can change. Labels mean everything. Politicians can claim “the war on terror” is literally one war spanning numerous countries with global implications.

As anti-war activists, we need to be waging our own war against war itself. You are in or you are out, there is no in between.

Now, Bernie supporters. It’s your turn. Gimme what you’ve got. Show me.

I Am The Revolution

I am the Revolution
I am Anonymous
I am Antifa
I am anti-media
I am anti-corporate
I am for an establishment but changing the one we’ve had for decades
I am all races
I am all genders
I am all sexual orientations
I am all religions
I am all nationalities
I am against war
I am non-violent by choice, not by fear
I am your ally
I am your defender
I am your friend
I am your neighbor
I am not going away
I am not backing down
I am the Revolution
I have been doing this my whole life
And I am just getting started

Tulsi Can Unite The Country

With all the rhetoric of the last few years about unity, the same rhetoric has been concurrently divisive, incessant “us against them” mentality which does absolutely nothing to unite anyone outside specific echo chambers. US against Russia, China, Mexico, Turkey, Israel, Venezuela, Iran, Europe… Worse still, that rhetoric has divided American against American along party lines with no policies or issues being debated.

If you try and bring issues into the discussion, you will be ostracized by party or name loyalists. Yes, that absolutely includes Bernie supporters. It was once Bernie who claimed he was an Independent who could work with both major parties. He no longer even attempts to voice that claim and his followers, most of whom are new to the game, have not noticed the change. They just follow along, claiming he has a consistency which does not exist when viewed objectively.

Now we have a candidate who holds the potential to genuinely unite voters and possibly parties, at least on specific issues and policies. That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard.

Nobody paying attention can claim that the DNC is the party in favor of peace any more. They have raged in favor of every single war for decades. In 2016, it was the RNC convention which spoke of ending conflicts. It was Hillary’s DNC convention which was intensely militaristic, with uniform after uniform taking the stage and continuous talk of “a strong defense”. It has been the DNC pushing Russiagate, who increased the “defense” budget beyond what Trump had requested, who have objected to efforts of peace talks with Russia and North Korea. Who insisted that US military presence in Syria should continue.. illegally.

There is no question that there are fundamental differences between Democratic and Republican voters. However, that divide is not as deep as many convince themselves to believe. Republicans tend to prefer a more authoritarian president, while Democrats prefer a nice-speaking pretty face. Yet voters on both sides will completely close their eyes, ears and minds against the atrocities committed by their preferred cult leader, fully prepared to fight to the death it appears, to defend the same atrocities.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if millions of Americans lost their life savings and evicted from their homes under Trump, rather than Obama? If the big banks had grown bigger under him? The outcry would cause earthquakes and we would have more calls for impeachment which would go nowhere because it benefited corporations. How about if Trump refused to prosecute the banking elite and those guilty of torture? What would happen if Trump said in a folksy tone, “We tortured some folks”? How about if he expanded our bombing to add another 5 countries to the list of our victims?

Yet Republican voters and the majority of Independent voters oppose warfare. They want our troops out of other countries, want to end regime change wars, want our wars to be called wars. The majority of voters support universal healthcare and breaking up big banks. Most Americans support legalization of marijuana, at least for medical use. Most Americans support price reduction and controls on medications.

Every one of these things are policies expressly supported by Tulsi Gabbard.

In addition, many millions of Americans oppose the election fraud committed by the DNC in 2016. Tulsi is the one, single, only mainstream candidate who stood up against that fraud. She did not campaign for Hillary in 2016 and recently stood up against Hillary as nobody has done publicly in the Democratic Party.

On the left, Tulsi supports universal adult education and forgiving student loan debt.

On the right, being a veteran, supporting veteran support and being a strong leader definitely gains support by those who are disappointed in Trump’s performance.

If we truly want to solve our problems in this country, which affect all other countries in some ways, we absolutely need a president that garners popular support from voters of ALL parties.

Tulsi is young, strong, healthy, lucid, literate, ethical and professional. She has shown she will stand by her values in the face of an oppressive system, even when it is her own party in which she holds a high position and meets with vindictive actions in response. She will meet with leaders we do NOT agree with, not just slaves to the US Empire. She is able to openly state she has been convinced she held a view in error. She is disliked by the “liberal” media. Each and every one of these points SHOULD be held in her favor by any true American.

Or would you prefer to just keep going the way we have been going? Do you prefer solutions or mindless, endless, destructive hatred? Personally, I want solutions.

No, Bernie Does NOT Want To Protect Whistleblowers

A few days ago, Bernie Sanders announced his support for protection of whistleblowers. What his supporters have missed in this TALKING POINT is the very obvious omission of any suggestion of protection, objection to the prosecution of or statement that he would pardon Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

It has been months since Tulsi Gabbard issued the statement that, if elected, she would pardon Assange and Manning.

This is notable because in his much-touted 40+ years in office, Sanders has never once made a statement in favor of whistleblowers. Until now. He is only making his statement now that the DNC is screaming to protect whistleblowers coming forward with questionable, closed-door, hidden, “classified” information against Trump.

That’s interesting because I would consider a whistleblower to be someone who releases information to the public. Maybe that’s too tight of a definition but in this case, corruption on both sides is being considered, including Biden and his son. Biden’s son is not a government official. So, why do we not get to hear this evidence? It involves billions of dollars of US taxpayer dollars which went to a literal Nazi regime in Ukraine by Biden/Obama. Versus the question of whether $400 million was withheld by Trump to the new non-Nazi administration now in place. To date, there has been no public evidence connecting the Trump funds with the investigation. The evidence is coincidental at best.

While Kiriakou was in prison, Sanders never supported whistleblowers. When Snowden was exiled to Russia, Sanders said nothing. When Manning was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, considered torture by the UN Human Rights Council, Sanders said nothing. As of right this minute, Manning is being imprisoned on double jeopardy, against US law while Assange has been well documented showing obvious signs of torture. Sanders remains silent on the subject.

This is your “Progressive”?!!!

Sanders continues promoting Russiagate on all levels, from his rhetoric to his policies. I’ve explained what dangers are inherent in Russiagate if allowed to continue.

On one side of the whistleblower issue we have whistleblowers who revealed torture by our government. Who revealed murder by our military of civilians, journalists and children. Who revealed the perjury of the CIA director in front of CONgress while documenting illegal, warrantless mass surveillance of the US and global population. Who revealed election rigging by the DNC. Who revealed US government funding and arming of terrorist groups in the Middle East. Sanders has not spoken a single word, even as of today, endorsing protection of those whistleblowers.

On the other side we have a whistleblower who heard second hand accounts of a phone call to a foreign leader regarding a vague reference regarding a corruption investigation involving a US candidate highly likely to lose while displaying very obvious signs of advancing neurological deterioration. THAT so-called “whistleblower” sparks a statement from Sanders of protecting whistleblowers.

Yet it is worse than that. Let me make this abundantly clear, for those of you in the cheap seats. The Ukraine investigation DOES NOT involve Biden directly. It involves his CIVILIAN SON. This is an equivalent to the fact that the DNC is NOT a government agency, it is a PRIVATE organization!!!

So, Sanders will protect those who are suspected of corruption, including those who impacted the 2016 election, as long as those suspects are members of the DNC. Yet he will still claim to be against corruption. He will promote an agenda which pushes us ever closer to war, which supports murderous sanctions in other countries for the benefit of oil and weapons companies.

At this point I absolutely reject the claims of Sanders and his supporters to be “Progressive”. Each and every one of them are nothing but opportunists with an eye on their own profit margin. They are just as warmongering, corrupt, Zionist, nationalistic, selfish, apathetic and bloodthirsty as anyone they disparage on the far right. They just don’t admit to it openly.

I Am A Russian Asset. Are You?

Hillary Clinton’s accusation against Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein was not an isolated incident or anomaly. It has preceded by the past three years of proaganda, culminating in the now well-self-debunked Mueller “investigation” (sic), which investigated the FBI “investigation” (sic) into “collusion”, which even the Mueller report clearly states he found no evidence for. Not to mention the fact that “collusion” was never defined and does not exist as a legal term.

For over three years Rachel Maddow has devoted her entire daily show to this conspiracy theory. In the process she has cut off or ejected guests who in any way did not feed directly into her narrative. It has been a very sad fall for someone who was once a sane voice. Guess she made her $30,000 a day and that’s all that matters to her.

Since the accusation, many MSM sources have followed with their support and literal collusion with these claims. I say literal because many of those media sources were major donors to the Clinton campaign and are recipients of advertising revenue from military contractors. Meanwhile the advertising budget of those military contractors is paid for by your tax dollars, so the supply is virtually limitless.

The claims that Tulsi is a “Russian asset” has no basis. This is being directed at a sitting US Congresswoman, an active military veteran/service person and someone who has been and remains on the US House Armed Services Committee for six years.

Even Bernie Sanders accused his own followers from 2016 of being Russian assets. He has never withdrawn or apologized for that statement. He has continued advancing that statement ever further since then, including his current policy statement on foreign affairs.

Personally, I have been accused of being a Russian asset/agent/troll/whatever on too many occasions to count. So, what does it take to be considered a “Russian asset”? Because the claim is that you do not have to be aware you are one. In which case you are deemed a “useful idiot”. You just have to advance the alleged “Russian agenda”, which makes you a “Putin puppet”.

The “Russian agenda” is never clearly defined. If you challenge anyone using the accusation, they can never explain exactly what Russia would have to gain from said agenda. For the last 3+ years, when unable to show any evidence of “collusion”, the claim has been that Russia wants to sow chaos and division into the US social and political environment.

Here are some of the (abbreviated) actual claims of accusers which make me a “Russian asset”-

Debate. I support social and political debate on actual issues. Not loyalty to a piece of cloth, race, religion, gender or political party which strives to divide us.

Universal healthcare. I absolutely believe that universal healthcare is the best system possible. So much so that I wrote a 4 part series explaining why and how in very real terms.

Anti-war. Anyone who opposes the war machine will be branded a Russian asset. I find being against war to not only an emotional and humanistic stance but a logical one. Apparently this means I have been brainwashed because peace is a Russian idea.

Police oversight. Excessive use of force by police has been well documented. Anyone can argue that it is rare, yet we find more every day how common it is. Yet, endorsing the idea of citizens overseeing accusations of police abuse and demanding justice is apparently part of the Russian agenda.

Racial justice and equality. Beginning in 2016, the DNC has claimed that Black Lives Matter was a Russian construct. This began around the time Hillary had BLM members banned from her events. Kaepernick’s protest has been labeled as a Russian construct. Basically, if you think nobody should be treated unequally because of the color of their skin, you have fallen victim to Russian propaganda. Including when minorities are gunned down in the streets while unarmed and non-violent.

Gender/sexual identity equality. We all know white straight (claiming) males are the height of evolution. All men are more valuable than women but especially white men. (You can include Hillary in this category.) If you think otherwise, you must have been abducted and had Russian brain surgery which was wiped from your memory.

Religious equality. America is a Christian nation and don’t you forget it! If you think anyone of any other religion should have equal rights and representation, go back where you came from! I don’t care if you were born here! Damn Russian!

Wealth inequality. This one absolutely marks you as an “evil Communist”. If you think some members of society should not hoard billions or trillions of dollars while working people die from lack of healthcare, wind up homeless and children go hungry, you are part of the Russian agenda.

Housing. If you believe nobody should be homeless against their choice in what is allegedly the richest country on earth while millions of homes and apartments sit empty, most owned by equity investors, you are a Russian asset.

Election integrity. Do you think our elections need reform? Paper trails, open to more than two parties, ranked choice voting, all Americans eligible to vote? You’re a Russian asset.

Election funding. Do you think elections should all be funded by the government, not corporations? Equal funding for more than two parties? That’s absolutely a Russian idea.

Gun control. If you support any form of gun control, including a ban on assault weapons, you must be a Russian asset.

Universal Basic Income. This one is absolutely Communist. You think that as more jobs become automated that people still need a means to survive at a basic level? Damn Pinko!

Universal adult education. If you think college or university should be freely available to all Americans, rather than remaining in debt to banks for a huge percentage of your life, you’re a Russian asset.

Respecting sovereignty of other nations. What? You think that the US does not have the right to invade, dictate and change governments of other countries? You simply have been propagandized if you think we do not have the duty to assassinate, overthrow foreign leaders and murder the populace when we want to steal or control their assets. You’re a Russian asset.

Environmental protection. If you think that cleaning up and controlling our mess from the air, water and soil is a good idea, you’re wrong. The only way this could be a good thing would be if corporations made more money cleaning up the environment than they make/save by polluting it. Even then they should be able to dictate their own rules. You’re a Communist.

Freedom of speech. If you are against censorship, even by major corporations, think citizens should be free to protest in any non-violent way against any organization or atrocity conducted/supported by our government, you aren’t a true ‘Mercan!!! Now shut up and bow down to your corporate gods! No more of your Russian propaganda!

Yes, I have been outed at some point for being in favor of each and every one of these issues. I guess I am brainwashed and delusional when I think these things should be rights. Either that or I was planted here as a child to infiltrate US society as a sleeper agent. For the most part I have been biding my time until Hillary came along. That was my goal and purpose before I was ever born. In truth, I am a Russian Commie Pinko Socialist Anti-American Subversive Terrorist trying to destroy US society, overthrow the government and replace it with those of my own kind. We will oppress the population by means of enacting every one of these rights, making you all slaves without realizing it!!! We will force you to live longer, happier, healthier, more secure lives free from war, free from crushing debt, have the right to an education with clean water and respect each other while doing so! In this way we will cement our control over you, your children and their children forever!!!

Only the truly initiated ever saw our nefarious plans coming. Those initiated are the ones we must take drastic steps to control. We must BLOCK THEM ON SOCIAL MEDIA!!! (Yes, the most horrible atrocity we have yet conceived. We must not speak of it here. It brings nightmares to many. )

Join me, komrades and reveal yourselves!!! NOW is the time our plans come to fruition!!! Hide no longer!!!! The programming is complete!!!!!

No, Tulsi Is Not “Pro-Israel”. Stop Being Lazy!

Since Tulsi called out Hillary, the biggest argument being used against her is because she opposes Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS).

Many people are using this argument without knowing the facts. It is a simplified talking point with no substance. So, let’s debunk this one now.

Yes, she opposes the BDS movement specifically. In no way does she support the punishment of those raising their voices. She supports freedom of speech and backs it up.

The first thing to look at is why she opposes the BDS movement. It is spelled out clearly in HR246 (link), which she voted in favor of . The major points of which are:

Whereas the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) targeting Israel is a campaign that does not favor a two-state solution and that seeks to exclude the State of Israel and the Israeli people from the economic, cultural, and academic life of the rest of the world;

Whereas the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is one of several recent political movements that undermines the possibility for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by demanding concessions of one party alone and encouraging the Palestinians to reject negotiations in favor of international pressure;

Whereas the founder of the Global BDS Movement, Omar Barghouti, has denied the right of the Jewish people in their homeland, saying, “We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”; (bold mine)

Whereas the Global BDS Movement targets not only the Israeli government but also Israeli academic, cultural, and civil society institutions, as well as individual Israeli citizens of all political persuasions, religions, and ethnicities, and in some cases even Jews of other nationalities who support Israel;

Whereas the Global BDS Movement does not recognize, and many of its supporters explicitly deny, the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination;

Whereas university-based Global BDS efforts violate the core goals of the university and global cultural development, which thrive on free and open exchange and debate, and in some cases, leads to the intimidation and harassment of Jewish students and others who support Israel;

Whereas the Global BDS Movement promotes principles of collective guilt, mass punishment, and group isolation, which are destructive of prospects for progress towards peace and a two-state solution;

Resolved, That the House of Representatives —

(1) opposes the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement) targeting Israel, including efforts to target United States companies that are engaged in commercial activities that are legal under United States law, and all efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel;

(2) urges Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct negotiations as the only way to achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;

(3) affirms the Constitutional right of United States citizens to free speech, including the right to protest or criticize the policies of the United States or foreign governments; (bold mine)

(5) reaffirms its strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states — a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state — living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.

To go further, she cosponsored HR496 (link), the major points of which are:

Affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives —

(1) affirms that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) opposes unconstitutional legislative efforts to limit the use of boycotts to further civil rights at home and abroad; and

(3) urges Congress, States, and civil rights leaders from all communities to endeavor to preserve the freedom of advocacy for all by opposing antiboycott resolutions and legislation.

Now, these are only excerpts of these bills. I have provided links for anyone choosing to read the bills in their entirety, which I am guessing nobody reading this has done.

Stop using Establishment talking points without looking deeper into things which do not fit the picture. It took me one single search term to find out the facts on this. Yet people will spend hours arguing, using the exact same talking points for months without bothering to enter that one search into their browser.

Try harder.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

I am an independent writer/content producer with no corporate sponsors or backing. The only income I make from my writing comes from views. At least I have reached the point where it makes more than it costs me! lol! (Not by much.)My writing is done in between full time (and overtime) nursing, shared custody of my brilliant daughter and mundane existence.

Please consider becoming a patron on Patreon. I try and average at least 20 articles a month, so a $1 a month donation would come down to 5¢ per article to support independent, non-corporate writing. My Patreon page is here.

If you care to share articles with those who do not have Medium or Patreon accounts, I also post most of my articles on my own website, which has no advertising and I pay for with income from writing. My website is at https://issuesunite.com/ and all articles can be shared freely. You can always quote me, no attribution required. My goal is spreading information and awareness. The whole point is building a better, more peaceful, more equitable world for us and future generations.

Peace Is Not A Secondary Consideration

Many people who support certain candidates want to support universal healthcare and place peace as a secondary consideration or make peace completely optional.

The same people or many of them want to increase wages with the same view toward peace.

Peace is not a secondary consideration. Peace is not optional. This entire thought process brands the holder of these views as nothing better than an unethical capitalist. Right in line with weapons manufacturers and vulture capitalists.

When one is willing to place peace on a back burner while crying for universal healthcare and higher wages, allegedly socialist policies which benefit them, they are literally stating they do not care about the deaths and injuries our country inflicts upon brown-skinned people in other countries. Just as long as you are making a profit or reducing your costs, any atrocity done in your name is acceptable. Because that is all you are thinking of. Your bottom line.

It’s amusing (sic) when so-called “leftists” (sic) place themselves morally above WAR Street executives or candidates who pass tax cuts for the rich. Yet at the same time are willing to blind themselves to the warmongering policies or political double-speak of their preferred party or candidate. Double speak which includes phrases like, “(We will) Work with pro-democracy forces around the world to build societies that work for and protect all people.”

Never question what this means. Never ask who defines what is a “pro-democracy force”. Never ask why the use of the word “force” is necessary in such a statement. Never ask why the candidate who makes this statement has remained silent on election fraud in 2016 for three years, yet disparaged the Venezuelan election, which was monitored by observers from FORTY countries and deemed legitimate. Is the US the one to determine which countries are “pro-democracy”, while we still have gerrymandering, the Council on Presidential Debates and superdelegates? Never question how we will behave toward governments which are deemed NOT “pro-democracy”.

Just pay no attention to what is not said.

Domestic economic policy is continuously compromised by the expense of our foreign policy. The way we “support democracy” involves dropping over 120 bombs a day at an average cost of $80,000 each. The detainment, torture, dismemberment and slaughter of unknown millions of innocent civilians, including men, women and children. The starvation of millions more via sanctions we have no right to impose. Military and “intelligence” operations around the globe, overthrowing democratically elected governments that refuse to bow down to the US Empire. Over 1400 permanent military bases globally, an unknown number of black ops sites and temporary bases or encampments, mass surveillance of our own population, legalized propaganda and censorship domestically. All paid for with your tax dollars, past, present and for generations to come.

In other words, our “support of democracy” costs us well over $1 trillion a year.

Never mind that this expense is used as the primary excuse for saying “we cannot afford universal healthcare”, for reducing food stamps and housing benefits. Never mind any of that.

Focus instead on what this says about you, as a person. How much you are willing to place your own profit, your own benefit above the lives of those in other countries. Focus on the fact that you are you can be reading this right this second and are struggling to make excuses to defend it. Focus on the fact that you will be angry at me for saying these words, rather than awakening, realizing the truth or even considering the truth behind these words. You will be angry but not the least bit ashamed.

You’re no different from the worst capitalist you so disparage. You’re worse because you know what the truth is. You’re worse because you will not have a guaranteed bonus for your words and actions. Your stock package will not increase in value. You will not get a promotion. You will not have your image posted in some business magazine, praised as a “success” and a “leader”.

You’re worse because you tell yourself there is a choice between what you want and peace. Peace is the only choice we should even consider at all.

Know what else WAR Street capitalists do the same as you? Portray themselves as being concerned with others. Listen only to voices in their own circles and reject all others. Tell themselves they are “better than” and that they “deserve” their profits, even if someone else suffers.

So you can stop hating on those capitalists until you look in the mirror and can HONESTLY say you are different.

Yes, Tulsi IS More Progressive Than Bernie

Yes, I did a video on this subject but it had very few views. So I guess I will put it in writing and bring in even more points to consider.

Many Bernie Sanders supporters absolutely insist that he is the most Progressive candidate. No, he is not. By a long shot. He is simply the only candidate they have paid any attention to. It is willful ignorance and cult mentality. The very thing they wish to criticize in others. They believe he can do no wrong or that any wrong he does has been forced on him.

I have said many times that if Bernie has been threatened or forced in some way, that means he was controlled, is currently controlled and will remain controlled. Even if elected.

None of this means I think Tulsi is perfect. My personal preference is Hunter of the Green Party. However, as far as the two major parties, Tulsi is absolutely the most Progressive candidate. You need only do two things to understand this:

1- Read their policies objectively.

2- Understand the difference between policies and talking points. The more vague any statement is, the more it is a talking point, not a policy. Both candidates have areas in which their policy pages could be far more specific, so they come across as talking points.

With this in mind, let’s take a comparative look at the policies between Bernie and Tulsi. Anywhere quotes are offered, the quotes stated are copied and pasted directly from their websites, so you can look these things up and confirm them as you go.

Healthcare. The one which most Bernie supporters focus on solely and all else is fluff. Universal healthcare.

Bernie: “ Joining every other major country on Earth and guaranteeing health care to all people as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program.”

Tulsi: “Too many people in this country are getting sick without the care that they need. As president, I will work to ensure all Americans have quality healthcare incentivized to increase health and prevent and heal disease.”

Also Tulsi: “If you look at other countries in the world who have universal health care, every one of them has some form of a role for private insurance.”

BOTH are for universal healthcare. When you look at these two, many believe Tulsi does not endorse universal healthcare. She has made it clear since 2016 that she absolutely does. It is also believed that Bernie opposes supplemental health insurance. Yet there is no indication he would oppose such a thing.

Supplemental coverage is in all countries with universal healthcare. It is fact that nearly or all countries that utilize universal healthcare have some form of supplemental health insurance. Don’t believe me? Healthcare Triage on YouTube did an entire series comparing universal healthcare in the countries that offer it. The channel is very much favorable toward universal healthcare and the series is expertly, professionally, objectively done. https://www.youtube.com/user/thehealthcaretriage

Medications. Both candidates have virtually identical stances on medication prices.

Bernie: Allow Medicare to negotiate with the big drug companies to lower prescription drug prices with the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act.

  • Allow patients, pharmacists, and wholesalers to buy low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries with the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act.
  • Cut prescription drug prices in half, with the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, by pegging prices to the median drug price in five major countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan.

Tulsi: “No one should be forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying for life-saving medication. But that’s exactly what’s happening to millions of Americans as a result of Big Pharma’s chokehold on Medicare. They’ve managed to buy access into Congress, barring the government from negotiating cheaper prices for consumers, so they can continue to price-gouge those trying to buy life-saving medication and rake in profits at the expense of the American people.”

Foreign Relations. This is where these two candidates part ways most severely. You can read their entire pages but here I will focus on the most crucial differences.

Bernie: Work with pro-democracy forces around the world to build societies that work for and protect all people. In the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, democracy is under threat by forces of intolerance, corruption, and authoritarianism.

Tulsi: I think it’s important, for the sake of our country’s national security, to keep the American people safe, and in the pursuit of peace, for our president and commander in chief to have the courage to meet with leaders of other countries — whether they be adversaries or potential adversaries — in order to achieve peace and security.

Why are these statements different? If you are old enough, think back. Matter of fact, think of now. What are the words, “pro-democracy forces” code for? Haven’t we heard these words before? What followed? What Bernie is saying is that he will work with countries that are already our allies, that bend to our will in worship of the American Empire. Otherwise, he will oppose them. Oppose how? Those options are really limited, aren’t they? Sanctions which kill or military force tend to be the only options available once you remove diplomatic relations with those you disagree with.

Tulsi has already clearly demonstrated that she is willing and ready to meet with foreign leaders with whom we do NOT agree for the purpose of diplomatic relations. Force and threat are used as final options. Bernie has not made any statements even alluding to such an approach.

Why is this important? If you want universal healthcare, improvements in the economy and social support programs, military spending MUST be reduced. The military budget is used as THE biggest excuse for ripping money away from or saying we cannot afford these programs. To reduce military spending, it is MANDATORY we strive for peace with other countries. Tulsi makes it clear that she would divert those funds from military spending to social spending.

“..democracy is under threat..” These are highly troubling words by Bernie. They indicate clearly that he is continuing to push Russiagate and will follow it right through with Ukrainegate, both of which are nothing but cover stories for corruption of DNC elite.

Elections. Both have similar policies regarding election rights. However, Tulsi is the only one who mentions implementing an auditable paper trail.

Criminal Justice Reform. Both have similar policies on criminal justice reform, including legalizing marijuana, ending for-profit prisons, stricter penalties for white collar crime and ending cash bail. (I have heard Sanders speak on these subjects but ending cash bail is not on his policy page.)

Wall Street Reform. Both have similar policies regarding reinstating Glass-Steagall and breaking up “too big to fail” banks. I will state Sanders has some more Progressive policies regarding public banking, capping interest rates and controlling ATM fees.

This guide is not meant to be comprehensive. It is intended to encourage voters to actually read the policy pages of the candidates and listen closely to what is being said and WHAT IS NOT BEING SAID. When I say “Do Your Research” I MEAN IT. I am telling you to go straight to the source, as you should be doing, any way.

In all cases, stop allowing corporate media or biased pundits tell you what to think. Get out of the echo chambers. If you want actual progress, you have to think critically about what that means.

Would I support a ballot that has both of them on it in the general election? Yes but ONLY with Tulsi as president and Bernie as VP. NOT the other way around.

Peace Before Healthcare Is Mandatory

We keep hearing how we cannot afford universal healthcare because we “MUST” keep paying for bombs.

Then the bombs never stop. 

Which candidate is actually MOST in favor of real steps toward peace?

Look at policies and history. Not talking points.


https://youtu.be/ZryNBKKZ-8Q