Thursday, August 01, 2019

Trump vs Gabbard 2020

I would actually hesitate whom to support

Virtually all the Democratic Party presidential candidates suck as politicians, as ideologues, and as human beings. I don't want you to vomit on my blog so let's not analyze the human failures, crazy hypocrisy, and general Gretinism of the likes of F*ckula H*rris. It's too easy to find things that are sick about these candidates – and too hard to find things that are not sick.



Joe Biden is a pervert but he is at least an old-school pervert, like Bill Clinton was one, and that would be far better than any of the real progressives that may threaten America and the world by their replacement of Trump in 2020. The progressive terror that could follow the neo-Marxist whackodoodles' four years of frustration with Trump could make Stalin and Hitler look like lollipops.

Trump vs Biden could be something like elections involving Bill Clinton or George Bush – an echo from an older era. The world has moved on and the political disputes from the 1990s look innocently childish relatively to the semi-credible plans of the current radicals (or morons who are so moronic that some people incorrectly interpret them as radicals).



I became aware of the existence of Tulsi Gabbard just five weeks ago but I became an instant fan. Yesterday, in the presidential debate in Detroit, she has eloquently destroyed the record of a Californian hypocrite, as the video embedded at the top shows.



At some level, Gabbard represents many of the things that the leftists claim to support. She is female, she has grown up in Samoa – a Pacific island – and moved to Hawaii. She has a religion that makes her a minority, you know, some Hinduism or Hare Krishna.

And she is a genuinely strong woman and patriot – well, she is an Iraq War veteran. I just find it exciting that she could credibly mock Donald Trump as a sissy. Do you really want to tolerate female candidates who naturally served in a masculine job, believers in a religion that surely must be considered a rather suppressed one?

At the same moment, she is obviously a full-blown American patriot – one with a Republican background. She demanded that Obama would criticize the radical Islam – he has never done so; she is against the ideology of 26-27 genders (depending on how the marginal sporadic group is counted); and she seems even clearer about the view that Assad is basically the good guy in Syria (which he is); and that Russia should be a partner and the U.S. shouldn't provoke new wars. This peaceful, non-interventionist approach of hers is particularly charming for a soldier such as herself.

Well, I would almost forget. She is primarily beautiful. I should have started with it. Her speech is natural, balanced. She is 38 or so but you may see some strand of grey hair on her head. It is fascinating and leads me to a mixture of compassion and appreciation. You know, 38 is a pretty low age for such consistent strands of grey hair – which I believe to be natural.

On the other hand, it may be a testimony of her maturity that trumps her age; and a sign of her independence – others would probably hide it by colors. Gerhard Schröder probably did so at a much higher age. Well, I would probably also advise her to color her hair but I am still impressed by her personality because she doesn't do it. On the other hand, it's probably normal for soldiers not to be sensitive about such details – such as people's reactions to her grey hair. In Iraq, a brother of Barack Obama could have perforated her or cut her hands with a sword, like an enriched German in Stuttgart today – so listening to "oh, you have grey hair" is probably below her resolution. ;-)

Aside from her natural beauty, she could defeat Donald Trump in my eyes not only because of her "even clearer" peaceful approach to Syria, Russia etc.; but also because of her affinity to free trade. She says that she would stop the trade war, American workers and farmers are already suffering, and there is no clear picture of a victory – and I agree with that.

She is clearly not a far leftist of the current era – her sequestering on the islands probably helped to defend her against the largely contagious neo-Marxist pathologies plaguing much of the Democratic Party, RINOs, and beyond – and the infected Democrats have already noticed. So Twitter is already full of comments by the far left loons saying that she is a puppet or a bot inserted to the U.S. by the Kremlin to destroy F*ckula H*rris and the Democratic Party etc. I've read a couple of hit pieces – search e.g. for Gabbard Russia on Google – and the degree of the leftists' hatred is impressive and could actually approach the Trumpian dimensions easily.

Trump vs Gabbard would be a very interesting contest. She is presented as a candidate with some 1% support but this is largely a matter of propaganda. She is clearly igniting passions that dwarf those of the other Democratic candidates; and she would have a reasonable chance to actually steal quite a number of conservative voters from Trump – as my hesitation probably exemplifies.

But will she be allowed to win the Democratic primaries?

The neo-Marxists look extremely aggressive and many of us have already adopted the defeatist views but I actually think that if Trump is physically OK in 2020 (and I pray he will last for some time, it looks great so far), he will easily beat any of the far leftist garbage candidates and Gabbard is the Democratic Party's greatest chance.

No comments:

Post a Comment