She started out conservative because that's the household she grew up in. She is moderate on those issues. She's always been against identity politics, and her view on abortion is one where she isn't for it but believes she can't tell another woman what she should do. She thinks the woman will have to face the choice she makes. She, like most politicians, says LGBT is okay, but her support and backing of women and their right to sports and their own bathrooms shows she's much more conservative. And the Democrats hate her for it, even though Biden and others are basically neocons/neoliberals. They didn't like her talking against regime-change wars and how she ruined Kamala in the debates. Too bad Harris was made VP because she has ZERO experience and is horrible in that job. It is my belief Tulsi has always been a type of JFK Democrat. The classic sort, not the neoliberals of today.
PS: I met her in person at a rally and spoke to her about God. It was nice.
I think we always need to keep in mind the essential problem of our republic - that we vote for representatives who ultimately, for the most part, don’t represent us. We talk incessantly about their “positions”, and think little of the actual disconnect between our voting and the policies which are actually enacted. Whatever a politician is “for” matters little if it is not the policy actually enacted when the party is in power. What we really want, or think we want, is either a ruler, a monarch, who is truly good and strives to enact policies in accordance with Christian morality and the good of the people, or the democratic ideal in a land where the majority honors that morality and good. A bad ruler, or a majority gone bad, means not the good, but the ill of the country. But what we actually have, I think, is a bad oligarchy of shadow rulers behind the curtains manipulating puppets who take any and all blame, disposable “fall guys”. Trump threatened to be a real exception, a man, who, however far from the great statesmen who founded our country, really did intend to use the power of office as he, not that oligarchy, saw fit, and an awful lot of it coincided with that morality and good, thus making him a genuinely popular president, and it took fraud and election theft engineered by that oligarchy to replace him with a docile puppet.
It is useless to talk about positions on issues in regard to puppets, and MOST politicians MUST become puppets, willy-nilly. They do NOT have the wealth to stand independently of those who finance them, and most have some skeleton of past sin in the closet to be blackmailed with, to say nothing of possible leverage against family members. I don’t think we will soon see another man like Trump who both has his own wealth AND can break, as a surprise, through the barriers meant to keep good and independent (of puppetry) men out.
In addition, the issues we actually talk about tend to be ones where the aforementioned oligarchy has little stake. Issues that do greatly affect them are firmly suppressed. Thus, the legality of corporate lobbying is never challenged, though we may talk about sodomic parody of marriage (which can only weaken actual marriage as a thing held sacred by the public) and the murder of children in the womb.
So I would iterate that, if Gabbard could be an actual independent ruler who could actually enact the positions and promises she holds and makes - leaving out the entire philosophy of the nature of the sexes in ruling and public office - then we would agree that her foreign policy would be generally good - no nation can long police the world - but her domestic policies would continue the slide toward degradation and collapse that she didn’t start, but nevertheless supports.
“Not being for abortion personally”, but allowing choice, means supporting baby murder. Saying, “I don’t like it, but don’t think people should be prevented from doing it means supporting it. Thus, she is pro-abortion in practice, whatever she may say. As a national evil, there can be none greater, and along with and being part-and-parcel of sexual anarchy, will certainly destroy our nation from within. So tolerance of sexual anarchy, while nearly universal now, will still destroy us, and even Trump was not clear-sighted enough to see that. Few are, and think their tolerance of it a virtue. One might as well think it good and kind to tolerate poisonous mushrooms in one’s soup.
Sports and bathrooms are issues of such small import, and the artificial imposition of silly laws buttressing insanity serve as distractions from much more vital issues, and it is our tolerance, for one minute, of such things as “transgenderism” that is itself wicked. What she is “for” in such issues is of little import, but at least she expresses general sanity in those things.
The upshot is that she would be no cure for the evils that beset us. She has neither the power nor the wealth to truly enact her foreign policy vision, would be blocked at every turn, and silenced more effectively than Trump was. In the other issues she would be a useful puppet, helping spread “peaceful Islam” and sexual anarchy at home. I’m sure she is of good will, but to really make a difference now you need to break through the filters and barriers the oligarchs have set up to ensure that all candidates suit them on the vital issues, and will do their bidding, and let them have their tiny influences on the unimportant (to the rich) issues. Then you need to be able to stand against the storm of assault from the purchased politicians on both sides of the aisle, and the centralized media, both property of the oligarchs, to get anything at all done, as Trump very nearly did. That he has not the brain or vision of Washington or Lincoln has always been a pity, but for a man shaped in the modern era, with our pitiful pseudo-educations, I’d say he did reasonably well. Gabbard couldn’t match his performance, however much more likeable she may be. DeSantis almost certainly can’t, though he seems to be a good man of common sense. I can’t see anyone who can, and anyone who could would have to be, as Trump was, a surprise, one who the oligarchs think one of their own, who turns out to be one of ours.
