6 thoughts on “POLITICS … again!”

  1. I don’t particularly like that this article starts and ends with commentary as to “the rest of the” field or the candidates. But here is someone else who differentiated herself.

    https://reason.com/2019/06/26/tulsi-gabbard-wrecks-dems-with-powerful-anti-war/?amp .


    “War with Iran would be worse than war with Iraq,” said Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran. “Donald Trump and his chickenhawk cabinet—Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and others—are creating a situation where a spark would light a war with Iran. Trump needs to get back into the Iran deal, swallow his pride, and put America first.”

    Gabbard’s position contrasts with the positions of other Democratic candidates on stage. Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) was the lone debate participant to say that he would not automatically re-enter the Iran deal worked out by President Obama, suggesting a better deal could be had.

    Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) said that, while she favored reentering the deal, she would like to push for stricter terms. Klobuchar also stressed that if a war with Iran were to occur, it would require congressional authorization.

    Gabbard has kept the focus on the U.S.’s aggressive foreign policy the entire night. When asked about what she would do about the gender pay gap, the Hawaii representative declined to answer the moderators’ lady question, instead choosing to denounce our current interventionist foreign policy.

    Later in the debate, when Rep. Tim Ryan (D–Ohio) referenced the recent deaths of two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan as a reason to continue our war in the country, Gabbard was having none of it.

    “Will you tell the parents of those two soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan that we have to be engaged? That is unacceptable. We have lost so many lives, we have spent so much money,” said Gabbard.

    Drawing critical attention to America’s interminable overseas wars has been the explicit purpose of Gabbard’s longshot campaign from the beginning.



  2. Like your article says: ” in this Democratic primary there was plenty that set Klobuchar apart. Whether that’s a good thing for her remains to be seen.” She will certainly be one I will watch.

    I agree I wish both sides to stop with the Ad hominems.


  3. I haven’t yet been able to find short video clips of last night (which debate I did watch in full), but this article gives a more accurate characterization of Amy Klobuchar than did the guy in the above name-calling broad-brush commentary-masquerading-as-a-report. His video wasn’t even really commentary or analysis — in general, not only in regard to her.

    The article isn’t about last night, but she hasn’t changed her stances.


    U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) took a careful but deliberate step towards the political center on Monday night by showing skepticism about progressive proposals like the Green New Deal and free college tuition for all, while pointing to the looming threat of America’s growing national debt as a major constraint on policymaking. Her appearance on an hour-long town hall event hosted by CNN’s Don Lemon is likely to alienate her campaign from the ascendant left wing of the Democratic Party in some ways, but Klobuchar’s hesitance to support huge new entitlement programs will set her apart in a crowded field of 2020 presidential hopefuls ….


    [possibly as a] …. frontrunner in the centrist category. There’s no longer any doubt that’s where Klobuchar is aiming.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is from that same Reason article by Eric Boehm, on Klobuchar:

      Asked more directly about the national debt later in the program, Klobuchar showed some basic policy chops there as well. She called for raising the cap on payroll taxes that fund Social Security — right now, those taxes apply only to the first $128,400 earned annually — and reconsidering the 2016 corporate income tax cuts, though she stopped short of calling for a full repeal and a return to the previous rates. …

      Here’s a Reason article concerning Trump’s trade war(s):
      https://reason.com/2019/06/04/trumps-trade-war-turns-1-heres-what-weve-lost/ religious
      [You might be interested in the way this article begins (which I am not quoting).]


      In 2016, China imported a record 36 million metric tons of soybeans from America. Last year, it bought just 8.3 million metric tons of the crop, leaving farmers and exporters with a glut of supply and not enough demand. …



      …. To make matters worse, steel and aluminum tariffs caused a spike in the price of farming equipment.

      But the bigger concern …is the unknown long-term consequences the trade war will have. Will the massive Chinese market for soybeans be there if and when the tariffs are lifted in a year, or two, or five?

      Brazilian exporters have already swooped in to fill China’s demand. …



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.