We're talking about two different subjects here (debate boycott vs indy run), so let's not cross wires. My comments to dmoney were purely about her indy run. Nobody in the race is "not a serious candidate" IMO. There's simply contenders and then there are non-contenders. Making assumptions about people's intent seems like a fool's errand.
I'm sorry, by "not serious" I mean "has zero chance at winning the nomination." If you prefer "non-contenders" that's fine. As for the independent run, like most people who run for president when they have zero chance to win or impact the issues, there are substantial financial motives.
I'd be very interested to see what type of financial gain could come from that. As for the debate thing, I see it as a bad move overall but I understand the logic. I think Tulsi can make far more waves and boost her chances by throwing haymakers on the stage, rather than sitting on the sidelines pouting.
They get book deals, they raise money through PACs etc. that they can use for other political activities, they raise their national profile for future runs, etc.
I like Tulsi not caving cravenly to the military industrial complex. However, I'm not supporting Tulsi. Any evidence that bot swarms are supporting her?
I'm talking about more on the personal side of things. Doing an indy prezzy run for the purpose of funding "other political activities" strikes me... odd or unnecessary. I don't think Tulsi needs to do something like that to advance her career (the logical target being the Senate). And doing this with the aim of becoming president later seems also like a poor choice. She would be committing national political suicide IMO.
Book deals make them a bunch of extra income. Raising your profile so you can become a paid talking head on a major network when you leave politics makes you a ton of money. Raising your profile so you can get a great job with a lobbying firm when you leave office makes you a ton of money. Tulsi Gabbard could walk out of Congress at the end of this presidential cycle and immediately get a really high paying job with an isolationist think tank.
I find the paranoia regarding Tulsi interesting but also misguided. The claims of bots and foreign money are unsubstantiated. Unless I'm mistaken, Tulsi doesn't currently accept dark money or utilize any PACs or Super PACs unlike some of the other candidates seeking the nomination.
I have no paranoia that is unique to her. All candidates raise money and elevate their profile for future financial dealings. We could be having this same conversation about any other candidate in either party who has zero chance to win their nomination. They are usually either delusional, martyring themselves or enhancing their profile.
Like Yang, whose ideas I like ,what’s the point of running a long shot candidacy besides building a brand and making money? If Yang was serious about making change he’d be running for Congress or a mayor of a liberal city where he can implement his ideas. All I see from Yang at this point is an increase in speaking fees to talk about UBI at conferences.
The cynicism is strong in these posts. While neither of you are wrong about some individuals' motives to make money, I don't believe either Yang or Tulsi are running for financial purposes. Yang has stated that he is running to win, but he is cognizant of the fact that his odds to win are slim and he is hopeful that the UBI message will proliferate and force the issue to be adopted by the eventual nominee.
Or some want to be part of a democracy process to have their voice and opinion heard. However viable these candidates, they have followers, some that very much believe in their message. If your intention is one that matches what you campaign on, it’s not easy to let these people down, or let yourself down. They continue until they see the door shut with their own eyes - the first set of primaries election results. After that, delusional can stick.
Yang is a very wealthy man who is fame and celebrity averse (self admittedly one of his biggest obstacles as a candidate), so, all signs point to no on that. He has stated publicly many times that he is going for President because he feels we don't have time. He's trying to advance certain ideas and concerns as quickly as possible, and by all measures, it's working. I'd say he's also going for President because he has no interest in a career in politics. A stint as President (or a stint running for the office) is a much shorter commitment than a lifetime bouncing around Congressional halls. Can't say I blame him either. Politics sucks and his life by all accounts would be much more personally satisfying if he wasn't running for President. The exception to this is if you're an ego driven maniac, of course.
Right.... cause that's worked out so well for individuals in the past. Take Bernie for example. He's been in the House or Sen since 1990 pushing the same progressive ideas as today. How far did that get him? Very few sponsored bills signed in to law. Contrast that to his candidacy in 2015-16 and now the Democratic party has embraced many of his positions. Ron Paul is another example. He was in and out of the House from 1979-2013. His message was generally drowned out until his most successful run at the Presidency in 2012 when the tea-party movement took hold. After that moment the Republican party briefly took (and since abandoned) a more libertarian stance. With that in mind, Yang, Tulsi, and others can elicit change on a bigger scale with these candidacies than winning a House seat.
Considering the polling numbers for his presidential run.... seems like starting at Congress or maybe the mayor of a large liberal city would be more prudent. Hard to get much accomplished as a Independent Senator from Vermont, you need a coalition to get things down. Bernie is a real activist who never played the game or played it well. Had he actually put work into Democratic party instead of coming to them for the federal election funding apparatus in 2015, maybe we'd have a president sanders. I think people are forgetting about Obama and Warren when it comes to progressive ideas, which isn't to say Sanders wasn't also very important these last years. I don't see many connections to Ron Paul and the corporate backed Tea Party movement. There's also the Senate, Governors, Mayors, etc..... Considering the polling numbers... I think they just illicit change in people like you who seem to prefer anti establishment/change/chaos candidates. That's fine, but clearly most people find them a novelty. Let's see UBI in action.
