Physiology over Ideology

Remember that moment in the Dem primaries when Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Kamala Harris? Everybody cheered. Harris is universally detested among the Democrats without PhDs in English lit.

It’s really funny to think that the only reason why Harris and not Gabbard ended up being the VP is that she has a somewhat darker skin tone.

Of course, the entire plan to choose “a woman of color” as veep was in reality about snubbing Bernie Sanders and his many millions of sincere supporters. The DNC’s rejection of Bernie – even after he caved on almost everything – had to be justified as physiological and not ideological.

Bernie is complicit with his own destruction because he adopted this identity ideology and, as always, it came back to bite him.

13 thoughts on “Physiology over Ideology”

  1. “the only reason why Harris and not Gabbard ended up being the VP”

    I disagree. I think she was the establishment pick very early on and Biden was used as a catspaw to get her into office….
    And yes, that does sound like third world crony corruption… and it’s absolutely what I think happened.
    We’ll see how long Biden actually stays in the office… my guess is till about one day after the time limit that would allow her to run twice.


    1. Still, though, they chose her out of a crowd of identically unpopular, vapid creatures. Beto, Buttigieg, Yang – why not one of them? Because people immediately notice that this is ideological. Just like happened when Buttigieg “won” the first primaries.

      The only words more mesmerizing to the Left than “woman of color” are the words “trans woman of color.”


      1. “the only reason why Harris and not Gabbard ended up being the VP…”

        There’s also the fact that Gabbard willingly allowed herself to be interviewed on Fox News – and more than once! Unclean, unclean! – “He is unclean, and he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.”


  2. I’ve heard Tulsi Gabbard interviewed by Joe Rogan. No doubt she has political views that I would substantially disagree with. And yet: when she talked with Rogan, she used language that I have not heard from any Democrat — and damned few Republicans — in far too long. She talked about citizenship. She talked about the adult responsibilities of citizenship, of maintaining a ordered but free society. She talked about how her service in the military and her entering politics was motivated by that sense of adult responsibilty. She talked like an adult who wanted to live in a society of free equals — not a society of “consumers” or of welfare recipients.

    There’s no way in Hell that the bugman rulers of the Democratic Party were going to pick Gabbard as VP. No. way. in. Hell.


    1. Exactly. I disagree with Tulsi about nearly everything in her political platform, but I’d be a lot more comfortable with the current situation, if she were VP. She seems like an actual person (rather than a front for a party platform), and a patriot. She likes being American. Every other DNC candidate seems to despise the country, and can’t wait to get their hands on the levers of power to remake it into something more homogenously global.

      DNC of course does not want that.


      1. // Oh, I remember that one. It’s been years, and I have a really bad memory but that essay really stuck with me. It was horrid.

        What was horrid? He didn’t offer to euthanize old people, right?

        At university, I studied that the biggest health care costs are during the last half year of life and since funds are limited, it raises hard questions what monetary value to assign to an additional year of life. Since women tend to live longer than men, the female professor shared discussions of deciding on the costs made her uncomfortable. Yet, the decisions are being made in practice.

        There are also hard questions whether to do this or that (often painful) intervention during the last days, weeks or even months or years. When my grandmother was dying, the doctors asked us whether to do a certain procedure, but then decided themselves.

        Do not know what he writes in this protected article, but I would rather die earlier than live – or rather exist – in a ‘not-me’ state when (almost) only the body remains.


        1. Of course, if you don’t see a difference between human beings and machines, then it’s definitely incomprehensible why anybody would have a problem with this.

          Let’s remember, though, that if one can use a cost- benefit analysis for the existence of 75-year-olds (most of whom, by the way, are living full lives and are loved by many), then how do you justify the existence of the severely disabled? Aren’t they too expensive? And kind of useless?

          Once you start approaching human life from this point of view, you get into really unpleasant places.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.