I struggled through two more debates this past week.  In total, I watched about 5 hours of CNN in two nights, which exceeds my annual quota.

There were a few good questions from the moderators, but nothing great.  The first night was a little interesting when they were discussing healthcare and a few of the “moderate” Democrats spoke up and said that they don’t like the idea of pulling health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans who may be satisfied with what they already have.

They still insisted that healthcare is a right that should be guaranteed.  I am not sure if this means just for Americans or for the human race.  Could you imagine someone 200 years ago saying that healthcare is a right?  A right provided by whom?

Maybe starving people in Africa should just say they have a right to unlimited food.  Will that make food appear on the table?

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are considered in the top tier of the candidates, and they are also considered to be the most far left of the major candidates.  When they were slightly challenged on their plans for a total government takeover of healthcare/ medicine, they accused others of using “Republican talking points”.

If I had been one of the other candidates, I would have said the following: “You can say it is a Republican talking point, but if that’s the case, then you better learn how to respond properly to it.  If you are the nominee and are challenged by Trump on these issues, is your response always going to be that it is a Republican talking point? If you can’t respond to a supposed Republican talking point, then how will you beat Trump in a general election?”

The most interesting characters are Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, and Tulsi Gabbard. Williamson is especially horrible regarding reparations for slavery.  Yang’s economics are bad and his solution for a government-guaranteed income is even worse.  Gabbard is still bad on most domestic issues and doesn’t understand economics, although she at least acknowledges costs at times.

Still, despite the many flaws of these three individuals, there is something a little refreshing about them.  They are a little different.  They actually seem to be honest and genuine people.  Maybe that is what makes them different.  I could be wrong about their genuineness, but I am at least giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I won’t go through every candidate, as there are just too many.  While I like having some unique voices, I am looking forward to future debates that will be consolidated with stricter qualifying guidelines.

Senators Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand are just dull and offer nothing new.  Do they really think they will gain any traction in this large field just by repeating Democratic Party talking points? For Gillibrand, maybe she is afraid to be too aggressive because she is a self-described white woman of privilege.

Joe Biden (“Sleepy Joe” according to Trump) held up a little better in his second debate.  He was relentlessly attacked, but there were no major blows to him that stuck.  If he were to become president, he really would be a continuation of Obama.

And speaking of Obama, it is interesting how many of the candidates are now implicitly attacking Obama.  Of course, they are attacking him for not having been leftist enough with his domestic agenda.

Back when Obamacare was being debated before it passed, libertarians and some Republicans were warning that this was just a stepping stone to fully nationalized healthcare. It is quite obvious this was the intent of the left with Obamacare.  Now they are attacking it because it is insufficient.  But it is actually worse that insufficient.  It is detrimental.  It is one of the many reasons that health insurance premiums are so high, which makes it easier for the far left to call for a total government takeover of healthcare.

Kamala Harris is still, I think, the scariest candidate.  She is very authoritarian.  She said that she wants to tax companies who don’t give equal pay.  How would this work and who would decide what is equal pay for equal work?  If anything like this ever passed, it would greatly damage the market system.  It would be a major blow to economic liberty.

Harris would be horrible in almost every aspect.  She is a war hawk.  She is an economic fascist.  She is anti civil liberties except when it serves her own political purposes. She is basically Hillary Clinton except perhaps more articulate.  I don’t know if others will find her more likeable or not.

It was a great moment when Tulsi attacked Harris for locking up marijuana users and keeping people locked up for cheap labor.  Tulsi took her down a notch, which was needed.  Harris is the most dangerous and needs to be taken down.

Regarding Bernie Sanders, I am less fearful.  His economics is horrible, but I am not sure how much he would get passed into legislation as president.  He is actually decent when he speaks on foreign policy, but he never emphasizes it.  He will only talk about it when asked directly.  Therefore, we shouldn’t trust him on it at all.  And let’s remember that Bernie campaigned for Hillary the war hawk in 2016 in the general election.

Speaking of foreign policy, there was barely any time spent on it.  CNN was too busy focusing on healthcare and cultural issues where the president would have very little impact.  Foreign policy is the one area that the president can have an immediate and significant impact.  In the second debate night, there was a total of about 6 minutes spent answering foreign policy questions out of a debate over 2 and a half hours long.

Even aside from foreign policy, CNN really didn’t ask many of the important questions.  There is almost no talk of the deficit, which continues to balloon out of control, even during supposed prosperous times. The candidates are busy proposing all of these new programs when the deficits are already running around $1 trillion per year.  And more taxes on the wealthy aren’t going to cover that gap.

Tulsi’s Chances

Tulsi Gabbard is certainly the most interesting and unique candidate.  I would give her a “C” grade for her performance in her second debate.  She was strong in going after Kamala Harris on civil liberties.  And she was pretty strong when discussing foreign policy, but she didn’t do it enough.

The problem is that foreign policy is her signature issue, and she needs to stress it even more.  She didn’t say anything about it in her opening statement, which was a major disappointment. Her closing statement was a little better, but still not really strong.

She needs to take virtually every issue back to foreign policy.  Even when discussing healthcare, she needs to say that the other candidates have no plan to actually pay for healthcare.  If we want to be prosperous at home, then we need to start by saving hundreds of billions of dollars every year by ending these senseless wars and bringing the troops home.

Tulsi really needs to reach out to libertarians, as Andrew Yang has attempted to do.  She needs to hit the libertarian talk circuit.  She appears on Tucker Carlson’s program on Fox News, which is good, but his audience is quite mixed. Tulsi has previously been on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Tulsi needs to do so much more.  She needs to go on Dave Smith’s podcast.  She needs to go on Tom Woods’ podcast.  She needs to do an interview with Lew Rockwell.  She needs to make frequent appearances on Ron Paul’s Liberty Report.  She needs to talk to the libertarian world and specifically address them. I would imagine most of the major libertarian figures would interview her if given the chance.

Tulsi should address libertarians upfront saying that she understands there are differences between her and libertarians in regard to some domestic issues.  However, we should all agree that we need a non-interventionist foreign policy that will put an end to these wars and bring the troops home.  That will be a significant benefit regardless of whether the saved money is used to pay down the deficit, reduce taxes, or spend it on domestic welfare.

I think many libertarians would respect this message and might even throw a few dollars towards her campaign just to see her keep going to make it interesting.  She did recently co-sponsor a bill to audit the Fed, so maybe she will start reaching out more to libertarians.

I don’t hold out much hope of Tulsi actually winning.  The establishment media attacks against her will only get worse, and the Democrat voters tend to be more trusting of the establishment media.

But if we can keep her going in the debates, then it will at least spice things up and keep the topic alive.  I think people like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren will feel more compelled to speak against war with Tulsi in the picture.

It is reported by Gabbard’s campaign that she has already exceeded the 130,000-donor mark needed to qualify for the next debate, but it is not clear whether she will qualify based on the qualifying polls.

Let’s hope Tulsi is in the next debate.  Libertarians don’t have to fully support her, but we can certainly make it known that we support her on certain issues, particularly when it comes to ending wars.