#  > Prikbord >  > Het nieuws van de dag >  achtergrond | Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ...

## Olive Yao

.



Voor het eerst Tulsi Gabbard horen en zien spreken. Dit is een debat van een jaar geleden van democratische kandidaten. _Listen to this_. Check ook de _comments_. Recent veel nieuwe _comments_.

----------


## Olive Yao

.



> Ze is een 'as the wind blows' kandidaat. Was erg tegen gelijke rechten voor LHTB en tegen 'same sex marriage', totdat ze in in keer voor was. Ook haar abortusstandpunt was geloof ik twijfelachtig, en toen wilde ze plotseling Roe vs. Wade in federale wetgeving vast leggen.



Shifting stance on gay sex, abortion defines Tulsi Gabbard, Hindu in race for US presidency

The print, Deeksha Bhardwaj 15 January 2019 

An Iraq war veteran, 37-year-old Tulsi Gabbard is known as a Democrat the Republicans love.

New Delhi: At 37 years old, Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat who has thrown her hat in the ring for the 2020 US presidential race, has many firsts to her name.

She is the first Hindu in the US Congress (the first, also, to take her oath of office on the _Bhagavad Gita_), the youngest person to have been elected state legislator, and the first American-Samoan to be elected to the Congress.

However, what she remains for many is a paradox. Her bid to run for President in the United States has triggered an extensive investigation into Gabbards views, as they were and how they have evolved.

When Gabbard entered politics, she was only twenty-one, and in those early years she was a social conservative, pro-life and active in the fight against same-sex marriage, a profile in _The New Yorker_ dated 6 November 2017 says.

In 2004, for example, opposing legislation to legalise same-sex marriage, she referred to gays as homosexual extremists.

She is now pro-choice and pro-same-sex-marriage: On these and other issues, she has evolved enough to be almost  but not quite  at home in the contemporary Democratic Party, which is increasingly progressive, particularly on issues of gender and sexual orientation, it adds.

In 2017, she raised eyebrows with her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a man the US officially considers a war criminal for his alleged use of chemical weapons amid the ongoing civil war in the country.

Initially I hadnt planned on meeting him, _The Guardian_ quoted Gabbard as telling CNN in an interview. When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt its important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then weve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And thats exactly what we talked about.

In November 2015, Gabbard had introduced a bipartisan bill to end the illegal war against Syria.

The US is waging two wars in Syria, she stated. The first is the war against ISIS and other Islamic extremists, which Congress authorised after the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

The second war, she said, is the illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad.

*A rising star*

Gabbard was born on 12 April 1981, in American Samoa, but grew up in Hawaii.

Her interest in Hinduism came with her upbringing, with her father, Mike Gabbard, said to have been inspired by the religion, as evidenced by her name.

In 2002, Gabbard became the youngest person to be elected a state legislator from Hawaii. Soon afterwards, in 2004, she became one of the few people to forfeit public office to serve in a war zone [Iraq]. She is one of the first two female combat veterans to serve in the US Congress.

*A paradox*

In an article in _The Washington Post_, Gabbard was described as a Democrat that Republicans love and the DNC [Democratic National Committee, the body that governs the party] cant control.

Whats more, Gabbard has been glorified in the conservative media, the article added. Her criticism of Obamas failure to cite Islamic extremism earned her appearances on Fox News, it said.

Fox News is a popular US news channel with a known conservative bent.

In 2016, Gabbard resigned as vice-chair from the Democratic National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders run for the presidency, ahead of his debates with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Ever since, the doubt that she may be stealthily working for the Republican cause in a Democrats skin never went away. Even her later claims that she voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election was always viewed as reluctant.

There were some murmurs as she visited the Trump Tower after the 2016 presidential race to meet the controversial president-elect.

In March 2015, she was one of the few progressive Democrats to attend Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus speech to the US Congress, which came during the Israeli election.

However, at the same time, she has been a vocal critic of Israels crackdown on protests on Gazas border by Palestinians.

In 2014, Gabbard met Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But, last year, she refused to chair the World Hindu Congress since she did not want to participate in Indias partisan politics.

Gabbard has insisted that war and peace will be the central theme for her campaign, but her war for presidency seems to have just begun.


https://theprint.in/politics/shiftin...idency/178257/

----------


## Soldim

> .
> 
> Shifting stance on gay sex, abortion defines Tulsi Gabbard, Hindu in race for US presidency


Zou je op haar stemmen in de primary? En de presidential?

----------


## Olive Yao

.



> Zou je op haar stemmen in de primary? En de presidential?


Bernie Sanders is op wie ik zou stemmen.

Bij Gabbard zou ik eerst wel willen weten wat er aan inhoud in de zin van onderbouwing achter haar ideen zit.

----------


## Olive Yao

.

----------


## Olive Yao

.



> *1*. GOP values are stupid and evil, (...)
> *2*. Democrat values arent better  theres political convergence, and you can hardly distinguish a democrat president from a republican president.





> Hmmm. Kan je dat aan de Dreamers uitleggen?










> Second Thought
> Hello, friends! If you take any of the political quizzes and you're comfortable sharing, post your results here! I'm curious to see where everybody stands. Hope you enjoyed this week's video.

----------


## Olive Yao

.



> Awesome!
> 
> Your Political Compass
> Economic Left/Right: 0.38
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0


Leuk dat je de test gedaan hebt. Heb m (natuurlijk) ook gedaan:



Van tevoren had ik mezelf niet zo links ingeschat. Ook al ben ik antikapitalistisch.

Wat interessant zou kunnen zijn, is waar de verschillen en overeenkomsten tussen jou en mij dan in zitten.

Neem de eerste vraag:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Strongly disagree / Disagree / Agree Strongly agree

HIer zullen we toch allebei aan dezelfde kant zitten, zou ik verwachten. En zo zullen er meer vragen zijn.
Maar welke van onze standpunten verschillen dan? Want volgens deze teller ben jij economisch nipt rechts, terwijl ik een beetje meer libertair ben dan jij.

----------


## Olive Yao

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: wat ze in twee jaar bereikt heeft.

----------


## Olive Yao

.
Statement of Concern

The Threats to American Democracy and the Need for National Voting and Election Administration Standards

Statement

June 1, 2021

We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm. Specifically, we have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. Collectively, these initiatives are transforming several states into political systems that no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections. Hence, our entire democracy is now at risk.

When democracy breaks down, it typically takes many years, often decades, to reverse the downward spiral. In the process, violence and corruption typically flourish, and talent and wealth flee to more stable countries, undermining national prosperity. It is not just our venerated institutions and norms that are at riskit is our future national standing, strength, and ability to compete globally.

Statutory changes in large key electoral battleground states are dangerously politicizing the process of electoral administration, with Republican-controlled legislatures giving themselves the power to override electoral outcomes on unproven allegations should Democrats win more votes. They are seeking to restrict access to the ballot, the most basic principle underlying the right of all adult American citizens to participate in our democracy. They are also putting in place criminal sentences and fines meant to intimidate and scare away poll workers and nonpartisan administrators. State legislatures have advanced initiatives that curtail voting methods now preferred by Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as early voting and mail voting. Republican lawmakers have openly talked about ensuring the purity and quality of the vote, echoing arguments widely used across the Jim Crow South as reasons for restricting the Black vote.

State legislators supporting these changes have cited the urgency of electoral integrity and the need to ensure that elections are secure and free of fraud. But by multiple expert judgments, the 2020 election was extremely secure and free of fraud. The reason that Republican voters have concerns is because many Republican officials, led by former President Donald Trump, have manufactured false claims of fraud, claims that have been repeatedly rejected by courts of law, and which Trumps own lawyers have acknowledged were mere speculation when they testified about them before judges.

In future elections, these laws politicizing the administration and certification of elections could enable some state legislatures or partisan election officials to do what they failed to do in 2020: reverse the outcome of a free and fair election. Further, these laws could entrench extended minority rule, violating the basic and longstanding democratic principle that parties that get the most votes should win elections.

Democracy rests on certain elemental institutional and normative conditions. Elections must be neutrally and fairly administered. They must be free of manipulation. Every citizen who is qualified must have an equal right to vote, unhindered by obstruction. And when they lose elections, political parties and their candidates and supporters must be willing to accept defeat and acknowledge the legitimacy of the outcome. The refusal of prominent Republicans to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, and the anti-democratic laws adopted (or approaching adoption) in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Montana and Texasand under serious consideration in other Republican-controlled statesviolate these principles. More profoundly, these actions call into question whether the United States will remain a democracy. As scholars of democracy, we condemn these actions in the strongest possible terms as a betrayal of our precious democratic heritage.

The most effective remedy for these anti-democratic laws at the state level is federal action to protect equal access of all citizens to the ballot and to guarantee free and fair elections. Just as it ultimately took federal voting rights law to put an end to state-led voter suppression laws throughout the South, so federal law must once again ensure that American citizens voting rights do not depend on which party or faction happens to be dominant in their state legislature, and that votes are cast and counted equally, regardless of the state or jurisdiction in which a citizen happens to live. This is widely recognized as a fundamental principle of electoral integrity in democracies around the world.

A new voting rights law (such as that proposed in the John Lewis Voting Rights Act) is essential but alone is not enough. True electoral integrity demands a comprehensive set of national standards that ensure the sanctity and independence of election administration, guarantee that all voters can freely exercise their right to vote, prevent partisan gerrymandering from giving dominant parties in the states an unfair advantage in the process of drawing congressional districts, and regulate ethics and money in politics.

It is always far better for major democracy reforms to be bipartisan, to give change the broadest possible legitimacy. However, in the current hyper-polarized political context such broad bipartisan support is sadly lacking. Elected Republican leaders have had numerous opportunities to repudiate Trump and his Stop the Steal crusade, which led to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Each time, they have sidestepped the truth and enabled the lie to spread.

We urge members of Congress to do whatever is necessaryincluding suspending the filibusterin order to pass national voting and election administration standards that both guarantee the vote to all Americans equally, and prevent state legislatures from manipulating the rules in order to manufacture the result they want. Our democracy is fundamentally at stake. History will judge what we do at this moment.


Signatures are still being added. This list was last updated on 6/4/21 at 11:15 a.m. ET.

nu ondertekend door 186 mensen, de meesten professoren bij diverse universiteiten

Aan de ene kant, wat maak de intelligentsia nog uit?
Aan de andere kant, toch blijft zo'n statement nodig, mooi en inspirerend.
We hebben geen andere keus, er is geen andere weg. We moeten zandkorrels blijven aandragen. 


https://www.newamerica.org/political...nt-of-concern/

----------


## Olive Yao

AOC krijgt hier kritiek.

Tulsi Gabbard daarentegen een compliment.

De man helemaal aan het eind noemt de tweede activist 'brother'.

Vraag: zou dit in Rusland ook kunnen?

(Dit is niet een _suggestieve_ vraag - ik suggereer niet bij voorbaat dat het niet kan).

----------

