The American KKK is a fan too “He loves Tulsi Gabbard. Loves her,” the Hill newspaper quoted a Bannon associate as saying after Bannon arranged for Gabbard to meet Trump following the November 2016 election, a meeting that Gabbard later denied was a job interview. “Wants to work with her on everything.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/18/tulsi-gabbard-2020-progressive-steve-bannon-right
The thing is, if you ask anti Modi Indians whether they like Tulsi, they will say yes. So does that make her anti Modi as well? Or maybe just maybe, that makes her Indian and naturally Indian people of all stripes are going to relate to her. I'm sure that couldn't be it ... I bet you if you asked Muslim extremists in the US who their favorite congress person is, I bet you they would say Ilhan Omar. It doesn't mean that there's anything reciprocal. This is just the person that they identify as more relatable from their point of view. Doesn't mean Omar is an extremist sympathizer. Obviously a Hindu nationalist is going to be more interested in Tulsi than someone like Beto or Buttigieg. I mean sometimes I feel like we're stating the obvious and pretending that there's some big conspiracy behind it. And as far as ties to unsavory former politicians, I find it hilarious that Tulsi is under so much scrutiny. But what about Hillary Clinton's well documented ties to all kinds of unsavory foreigners? How about all that money in the Clinton foundation from dictators, torturers and human rights abusers? It's funny how when some people do dirty things in Washington it's called diplomacy, but with Tulsi it must mean that she's a Hindu fascist.
From my Indian colleague - "Tulsi has only the right-wing Hindus in India behind her because she is RSS [which is some sort of quasi-militant Hindu organization,, don't ask me]. All liberal and secular Hindus are against her. All Muslims and Christians are against her too." Don't you find peculiar that Modi supporters, the KKK, and America's right-wing bloggers have decided that Tulsi is the one Dem candidate out of 20 that they most like, and yet per your explanation none of this support is deserved/warranted? Because I sure do. There's some sort of strong buzz for this woman, with a global cast of unsavory characters. At any moment now I expect to see the Russian link.
That is a strong charge. "Quasi-militant Hindu organization" is probably understating their virulence.
FYP Don't do the "what about/how about" thing. It diminishes your opinion to the level of faux news; We all HATE whataboutism as being a means to distract from the topic at hand. That aside, I'm not attacking you or Tulsi, as she's generally a non-factor in this election, IMO. Just skip the "what about/how about," and leave that verbal mechanic to faux news and right-wing blowholes. Peace.
This is very different. Is Omar actively seeking out and associating with multiple Muslim extremists? Gabbard went to meet with Assad behind closed doors and members of the right-wing Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Gabbard met with Bannon and Trump. Gabbard met and praised Al-Sisi. Gabbard has met Modi several times and even went to India taking smiling photos with a bunch of fascists. Clinton, and the foundation got dragged (rightfully) plenty during the election and still do for their unsavory associations.
I saw Kamala on CNN last night. She was asked about M4all and the private insurances, she really struggled to provide a coherent response and basically said she has the same position as Bernie on that. That M4all is a political minefield and, while one can argue the merits of it and it certainly has a lot, it will be hard to sell one to people who are happy with their private insurance. Biden in that regard has a more astute position.
More astute? Perhaps. But the reality is that the days of trying to find a "middle ground" on healthcare are growing fewer. We tried the middle ground with Obamacare and that has essentially been left to wither and die on the vine. More permanent and wide-ranging changes are needed.
Exactly. The left essentially ceded the argument to the right and gave them everything they asked for. Obamacare was the right wing healthcare plan, effectively word for word. The right responded by moving the goalposts and crying like little whinerbabies. ******** them. The time for compromise is past.
I'd like to know who these people are who are happy with their private health insurance. I've had private health insurance for the entirety of my career, and at best, I would deem it to be adequate and more finicky and non-deterministic than my 16-year-old Volkswagen. I mean, I get that some people are a bit skittish about M4A -- although things seems to be less of a PITA for my partially disabled mother-in-law with Medicare and Medigap -- but folks need to be honest here. Being skittish about M4A isn't a good reason to oversteer and start making private health insurance to be some sort of great thing when it hasn't been for the vast majority of folks.
I'm so happy with mine that I'm wearing a wrist brace with a splint in the hope that this sprain 1) is a sprain and not a fracture and 2) eventually heals so I can get back in the gym without having to see a doctor (or nurse practitioner at the urgent care facility.
The only thing I love about my private insurance company are the nocturnal emissions I get when I dream about putting its employees in front of my personal firing squad.
Well that is what they tell the pollsters. https://www.kff.org/slideshow/publi...ns-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._support_is_high__but_complicated_140327.html Think progress is pretty lefty, here is an article on unions and M4A. https://thinkprogress.org/what-unions-think-about-medicare-for-all-2cffd87d7814/ The jacobins are very lefty, here they are telling unions to get with the program. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/medicare-for-all-health-care-unions
I would be happy to have a universal HC program like the HNS here but let's face it, it is a issue can be very easily be demagogued. M4all may be a bridge too far for a lot of voters at this stage. This is still the good old US of A. Let's make sure we win the elections first and gradually change the systems.
I'm trying to make the leap from employment to entrepeneurial self employment, and I have to say that the health care is the biggest obstacle. Being tied to employee health care is probably the #1 incentive to not take a leap. I bet it's the same for my employer. Offering that health plan to be competitive with other employers is probably the biggest pain in his ass. Employee healthcare is very anti capitalist, and it's an odd thing for Republicans to cling to. It suppresses hiring, worker mobility and small business start ups. I wouldn't be surprised if a universal "socialist" system would drastically increase small business activity in this country. It would also increase the ability of people to modernize their skills. I'm sure healthcare is the #1 obstacle for people wanting to go back to school. And probably the #1 incentive to not have children, which is yet another thing that is counter to GOP's pro family platform.
You could get rid of the tax deduction that companies get for providing health insurance. It would be unpopular, but it would clear an opsticle in the long run.
That is my issue with her. She is great in debates (duh! she is a former prosecutor), but has struggled with policy. That latter is why I am no longer on board with her.
I don't altogether agree with a number of her proposals, but I do find Warren the most compelling candidate in large part because of her policy chops compared to the rest of the field.
Ditto. Without exaggeration, several of these issues have been her life's work. Personal bankruptcies. Medical debt. Health care laws. Transitional financial problems. She has studied and published on those subjects, and it generally shows (although I think he has been too quick and glib to join the "no private insurance" bandwagon).
I don't think I was prepared in general for exactly how shallow the conversation around this primary was going to be and I'm pretty disappointed with that. In a pivotal election where the Democratic party is going to decide its response to one of the most disastrous and disturbing presidencies of American history, I feel like there's maybe three candidates (Sanders+Warren+Yang) running to do something rather than running to be somebody. Which is pretty brutal.
Just stumbled into this subsection of PCE, so I'm a week late here, but this is the 100% correct answer. A few things to point out: 1) Tulsi Gabbard isn't Indian. She's Hindu. 2) Hindus don't really proselytize. It's not their jam. So for a white/Samoan American to be a Hindu doesn't create appeal. Two types of Indians that will find Gabbard appealing: the Hindu nationalist. Those who like the style of the Hindu nationalists, ie, many of those who fall into a very subset of Indians in this country are Evangelical Christians. Almost all Hindu Indians in this country are liberal. They tend to also be deeply suspicious of populist movements, seeing what they did to the institutions of India over the last 30 years. Their preferred candidate often comes down to where they fall on the traditional-modern spectrum. Those who want their kids to settle down and meet a nice Indian boy/girl are more likely to support Biden. Those who are happy to see their kids with whomever: Harris. And it's often overlooked that Kamala Harris is Indian. Most of them will proudly claim her.