I think she is thinking strategically. To gain any influence on foreign policy, she knows Trump's admin is the only one open to giving her a job. Of course, to do this, you need to abandon a bunch of your positions, specially those critical of Trump. This article makes that clear. Another interesting take is Michael Tracey's. He works wi…
I think she is thinking strategically. To gain any influence on foreign policy, she knows Trump's admin is the only one open to giving her a job. Of course, to do this, you need to abandon a bunch of your positions, specially those critical of Trump. This article makes that clear. Another interesting take is Michael Tracey's. He works with Glenn Greenwald and it appears they have different opinions on Gabbard. Hopefully they can work it out and have both points on view on Greenwald's YouTube show. To me she is just going to be a Trump loyalist, if not, shes fired. She might be able to fight off some of the foreign policy machine, which would be a good thing, and at the same time continue it, like on Gaza.
Yes to all of what you say. In particular, Trump likes the role of hiring and firing, no nuance, no discussion, simply direct and forceful action, the decider, reveling in showing who is the boss. That he is subject to arbitrary action based on anger at someone not being loyal or being disrespectful is likely to produce the same circus of personnel change that we saw in his first go-round. His worst flaw (and there are many) is that reasoning is secondary in anything he does, what is primary is that he is doing it. His insecurity forces him to continually fire people to renew the respect he so desperately needs in his own mind. His TV show fulfilled this craving and without the country having to suffer any consequences. But here we are and there he is in the White House, again.
PS, if I had not been able to write in Jill Stein I would not have voted.
Nelson, you imply that if I were in a swing state I would have been helping another candidate. That isn't the way democracy works. One votes for the person one wants to see in office and others are free to do the same. It is a fallacy that when I vote for the one I want in office I am "really" voting for someone else.
No. This point of view only indicates that the person voicing it wants to blame another voter for not voting in the way the person wishes. It is the desire to place guilt on someone who is not guilty of anything. But the two parties love to put this out to protect the candidates THEY, not the people, have chosen to present as candidates.
I dont place blame on voters. I might disagree with them, like I just did. People think that voting is everything and how you vote says everything about you personally or your politics. I dont agree with this either. Yes winning elections is very important and during electoral periods we should encourage people to move to our side. If we lose, our work doubles, if we win our work doubles. That is the nature of politics. I hope this clarifies what you implied from my response.
I think she is thinking strategically. To gain any influence on foreign policy, she knows Trump's admin is the only one open to giving her a job. Of course, to do this, you need to abandon a bunch of your positions, specially those critical of Trump. This article makes that clear. Another interesting take is Michael Tracey's. He works with Glenn Greenwald and it appears they have different opinions on Gabbard. Hopefully they can work it out and have both points on view on Greenwald's YouTube show. To me she is just going to be a Trump loyalist, if not, shes fired. She might be able to fight off some of the foreign policy machine, which would be a good thing, and at the same time continue it, like on Gaza.
Yes to all of what you say. In particular, Trump likes the role of hiring and firing, no nuance, no discussion, simply direct and forceful action, the decider, reveling in showing who is the boss. That he is subject to arbitrary action based on anger at someone not being loyal or being disrespectful is likely to produce the same circus of personnel change that we saw in his first go-round. His worst flaw (and there are many) is that reasoning is secondary in anything he does, what is primary is that he is doing it. His insecurity forces him to continually fire people to renew the respect he so desperately needs in his own mind. His TV show fulfilled this craving and without the country having to suffer any consequences. But here we are and there he is in the White House, again.
PS, if I had not been able to write in Jill Stein I would not have voted.
I agree with you voting position if you werent in a swing state.
Nelson, you imply that if I were in a swing state I would have been helping another candidate. That isn't the way democracy works. One votes for the person one wants to see in office and others are free to do the same. It is a fallacy that when I vote for the one I want in office I am "really" voting for someone else.
No. This point of view only indicates that the person voicing it wants to blame another voter for not voting in the way the person wishes. It is the desire to place guilt on someone who is not guilty of anything. But the two parties love to put this out to protect the candidates THEY, not the people, have chosen to present as candidates.
I dont place blame on voters. I might disagree with them, like I just did. People think that voting is everything and how you vote says everything about you personally or your politics. I dont agree with this either. Yes winning elections is very important and during electoral periods we should encourage people to move to our side. If we lose, our work doubles, if we win our work doubles. That is the nature of politics. I hope this clarifies what you implied from my response.