People still angry she didn't endorse Bernie in 2016 should read this and know the reason why. Imo she should've either endorsed Bernie or just ran herself, as I don't think Clinton would've gone through with Warren's demands if she'd won anyways.

Here's a video from Rebel HQ giving their take and summarizing the matter.

The DNC tightens the debate criteria for the January debate again: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/475510-dnc-raises-thresholds-again-for-january-debate

This probably means that Booker, Castro and Gabbard still fail to make it. It might be possibly tough for Klobuchar, Yang and Steyer. The four frontrunners should've no problem to clear that criteria.

Here is my take on Gabbard no vote. She is definitely playing political games and it totally kills her story of not caring. She publicly stated that she did not see enough evidence to vote yes on impeachment. If that is the case then she should have voted no. Trying to play the middle is exactly what people with political ambitions do that do not want to go one way or the other.

As we see with the President endorsement of Gabbard no vote, a no vote can easily be played as a vote for no. You will definitely not see a none vote being played for Yes. If she had the courage to say she did not see enough evidence for Yes, then she should have vote NO. By trying to play the middle she only shows she is just as much a politician then everyone she tries to demean as such. I am not sure why she will continue to run under the Dems ticket when she would definitely have way more success running under the GOP.

Apparently, Klobuchar has already qualified. That was fast.

I think Yang is going to make it as well, as he always does, but it looks tough.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dHSFg0jrAeIAqDlFZqAu-5N2x-wk8PT-6H4DbCendUM/edit?usp=sharing

I really hope Steyer doesn't make it. He does not deserve to be on that stage.

Also, hats off to the DNC for not capitulating to Booker's tantrum. He should be ashamed of himself.

Found this video about the economics of Bernie Sander's plans and thought that it could be interesting for everyone here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QlmQ_3mmWQ

And yes, to answer the thumbnail already, they do work out.

I'd like to note that there's another reason people join, and that's the economic reason. People join to pay for school, because they have no other prospects to make it in life otherwise. Also, for benefits, like the health benefits. Only Bernie and Warren have enough planned to make this reason for joining obsolete, and in the case of healthcare, probably only Bernie. I'd also argue that those that sign up for the military during a time of peace, perhaps just for a desire to keep the country's defenses strong, I'd consider them innocent if an unjust war pops up and they get deployed. As well as people who sign up for branches that are purely defensive and don't get deployed in unjust offensive wars.

Oh and good news for you, Harris dropped out, she's no longer running for president, so no worries there.

Yeah, I forgot Harris dropped out.

I would categorize signing up in a time of peace as naivete, when joining the US armed forces. The past seventyfive year history of the USA shows that there's a decent chance of an immoral war popping up during your run in the Armed Forces.

The economic reasons for signing up would still fall under not caring about the lives of others on this planet. They know there will be unjust wars, but care more about themselves and their lives than the lives of others.

I don't know enough about the purely defensive positions to comment on it one way or another. I think that would be a very complicated topic. Something that I haven't entirely made my mind up about one way or another.

Calling Gabbard and Clinton a Dino doesnt add up when you look at the facts. If you look at Gabbard's voting record you'll see that she votes like most Democrats. Same goes for Clinton. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/tulsi_gabbard/412532 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

Does it really matter what party her Dad used to allign with? She's not her father lol. Also if you're dad was a politician and you wanted to get into politics it would make sense for him to put you on to some of his contacts.

Or maybe she wanted to serve her country? It's pretty extreme for someone to risk their lifes so they could advance their political career. Even if she was in a combat zone she was apart of the medical unit so her job was not actually save lives not kill others.

GovTrack only tracks what bills they've sponsored or co-sponsored. It's not a complete record of their voting history. But you are right. She mostly votes with other democrats. I wouldn't consider somebody voting mostly with other democrats to free them from DINO status though. You can vote with fellow dems 90% of the time, but if you support something extreme that flies in the face of what the Democratic party stands for you can still be a DINO. 

Hillary's vote for the Iraq War marks her as a DINO. 

Tulsi's choice to volunteer for service in Iraq shows that she was in support of the Iraq War. Something no democrat should have ever been in support of. As far as I'm concerned that makes her a DINO. As for whether or not she's as guilty as someone who served in a combat role, I have no clue. That's too tough of a moral question for me to answer with any confidence. 

Yes it would make sense to have your politician father give you some of his contacts. But that's not the point. The point is that she never would have held office if not for her father's help. She got into office based on who she was related to and not based on merit. 

She was already serving her country as a politician. You can serve your country by volunteering to feed the poor, or building homes for the homeless. Military service is not the only way to serve your country. 

She wasn't risking her life. 2.77 million Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. Only about 7,000 of them have died in those wars. That puts the average soldier's odds of dying on a tour of duty at 1 in 385 or a 0.0025% chance of being killed. Considering that she served as a woman during the Bush era, and that she was a VIP, she was never going to be put in harms way. So her odds of being killed would have been much, much, lower than the average soldier's. 

Well if you agree with 90% of you're parties policies and disagree with 10% that might be more extreme you're still a Democrat because that party shares most of you're values. It's good to have diversity in a party so you can appeal to a larger number of voters.

The majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq war in the senate and almost 40% of dems voted for it in the house. It might be something you don't support but there were a lot of Democrats that supported the war.

Well we don't know if she would have had a career if it were not for her Father. There are many politicians that got into office without having a relative already in the feild.

War zones are unstable environments and you honestly won't know if you will make it out alive. The opposition could always have a secret operation that can have you killed etc. But like I said earlier she worked in the medical unit so she literally was preventing injured people from dying which should be commended and not attacked.

I'm not even a big fan of Gabbard but she has definitely been a target of unfair criticism this race.