Tulsi Gabbard 2020 (2 Viewers)

[ren hoek]

She got multiple facts wrong on Syria and the history of the war.   Deterring Turkish aggression against Kurds while establishing a safe zone isn't "regime change war."   Oddly enough, that's a Russian talking point.  

Don’t really care about her position on abortion, don’t care about her beliefs growing up under a homophobic dad, agreed on her current ties to far right figures.  

Anyone who thinks the US’ reasoning for being over there has ####all to do with human rights or protecting people from genocide (while Obama and Trump actively supported the Saudi genocide in Yemen, and sat on their dead asses while Israel genocides Palestinians) needs to read a news article or something.  We supported Al Qaeda in Syria.  Al Qaeda!  Honestly, what a truly ignorant understanding of the world that is.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm just going to leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

Reasonable people can disagree on what the US's role in Syria should be. But to argue that the US isn't trying to overthrow Assad is madness.

This is good info that is tangentially relevant, but it does not support Gabbard’s statement that U.S. troops were in northern Syria for the purpose of a regime change war. Timber Sycamore was not about U.S. troops. U.S. troops were not there for a regime change war. Gabbard’s false statement to the contrary (repeated about eight times in two minutes) is lifted from Russian and Syrian propaganda. In full context of Gabbard’s other actions and statements, should that be at all concerning?

 

[unckeyherb]

Is she really alt-right, racist, and a sympathizer of Syria? NYT nailed it.

No

 

[unckeyherb]

You keep trying to argue that she's being smeared as an Assad apologist.   She had multiple opportunities to clear the record, and she either declined or failed to do so on every occasion.   It's not the media, it's her words and actions that got her tied to Assad.   Actions have consequences.   Maybe she should have considered appearances before she made an unsanctioned trip to meet with a mass murderer.

This isn’t true.

 

[-fish-]

This isn’t true.

Would you care to provide a link where she denounced Assad, or where she clarified her questioning of whether he carried out gas attacks on his own people?

 

[Murph]

This is good info that is tangentially relevant, but it does not support Gabbard’s statement that U.S. troops were in northern Syria for the purpose of a regime change war. Timber Sycamore was not about U.S. troops. U.S. troops were not there for a regime change war. Gabbard’s false statement to the contrary (repeated about eight times in two minutes) is lifted from Russian and Syrian propaganda. In full context of Gabbard’s other actions and statements, should that be at all concerning?

I start from the premise, that as a general principle I do not believe the United States sends troops to the oil rich territory of a warring nation for benevolent reasons.

And I especially don't believe it when you consider the history of how we got into Syria. Obama went to Congress to authorize use of force. When it became clear that he would lose the vote, he pulled it. Then we bombed anyway. Congress was never asked to vote on sending group troops. Nothing about this war has been above board.

If you want to criticize this as being too conspiratorial, I would disagree with you. But I could respect that argument.

If you want to argue that we should be overthrowing Assad, I would disagree with you. But I could respect that argument.

What I cannot respect are baseless accusations that anyone is acting on behalf of a foreign power. And I especially cannot respect such accusations against a veteran and elected member of Congress without overwhelming evidence.

I don't know what Russian and Syrian propaganda say. I don't read or watch RT. But I do know that just because Russia says something doesn't mean it isn't true.

If Tulsi is doing a poor job making the argument, and as I said in the debate thread last night, she is. It's because she's in over her head. She jumped to the national stage before she was ready and it's showing in her campaign.

 

[unckeyherb]

Would you care to provide a link where she denounced Assad, or where she clarified her questioning of whether he carried out gas attacks on his own people?

She has said numerous times she believes he is a bad leader and a bad person.  If you google it all you will find are page after page of MSM killing her for saying he is not a direct threat to the US.  He isn’t.  They don’t provide anymore of the text, which she clearly states he is not someone she respects, nor thinks should be in leadership.   

She also has said that she would meet with anyone to produce a dialogue that would potentially veer off of a path toward war.  The narrative that she is a Russian stooge or an Assad supporter is pathetic.  Truly.  

 

[ShamrockPride]

@unckeyherb I am not nearly, nor do I think I ever could be as eloquent and articulated as you just posted. But if I could be, I'd have written exactly what you just did. You somehow managed to mirror my exact thoughts on everything about this situation. So for that, I would like to thank you, whatever that is worth.

 

[ren hoek]

or where she clarified her questioning of whether he carried out gas attacks on his own people?

People are allowed to question the pretext for unnecessary wars without being painted as "apologists".   Even you must see how uncritical and powerserving that is. 

 

[ren hoek]

This is good info that is tangentially relevant, but it does not support Gabbard’s statement that U.S. troops were in northern Syria for the purpose of a regime change war. Timber Sycamore was not about U.S. troops. U.S. troops were not there for a regime change war. Gabbard’s false statement to the contrary (repeated about eight times in two minutes) is lifted from Russian and Syrian propaganda. In full context of Gabbard’s other actions and statements, should that be at all concerning?

https://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html

The whole point of US troops being in Syria, and the CIA's war against the Syrian people- with no declaration of war or congressional authorization of course- was to pave the way for a pipeline. 

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

https://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-1882180532.html

The whole point of US troops being in Syria, and the CIA's war against the Syrian people- with no declaration of war or congressional authorization of course- was to pave the way for a pipeline. 

This isn't new.  Check the date on this article.

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

Basically, Ukraine is the entire reason for the Syrian conflict. A bunch of Politicians from the EU and the US decided to bypass Europe's dependency on Russian gas by building a seperate oil pipeline through Syria. Democrats and Republicans were going to cash in bigtime by investing in the Ukrainian oil companies that would soon replace Russia as Europe's chief supplier.  

 

[urbanhack]

https://twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1184626850942857217?s=21

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Considering donating to her primary opponent. Not voting on the Syrian resolution is cowardly. 

 

[-fish-]

She has said numerous times she believes he is a bad leader and a bad person.  If you google it all you will find are page after page of MSM killing her for saying he is not a direct threat to the US.  He isn’t.  They don’t provide anymore of the text, which she clearly states he is not someone she respects, nor thinks should be in leadership.   

She also has said that she would meet with anyone to produce a dialogue that would potentially veer off of a path toward war.  The narrative that she is a Russian stooge or an Assad supporter is pathetic.  Truly.  

So no link denouncing Assad, huh?

 

[Henry Ford]

Corporate media hacks have 2 lines of attack against Gabbard:

1) Claim that an Iraq War vet is an “Assad apologist”

2) Ignore everything Gabbard says or does and just say that Nazis & Russians like her

Nevermind that most people on earth (sans the elite) oppose the Forever War

Sorry, just saw this.  Can you unpack why you think being an Iraq War veteran is related to whether or not someone is an "Assad apologist"?

Iraq, under Hussein, had virtually no diplomatic ties to Syria.

 

[-fish-]

People are allowed to question the pretext for unnecessary wars without being painted as "apologists".   Even you must see how uncritical and powerserving that is. 

You have demonstrated that you don’t know what being an apologist means.  She refuses to denounce a mass murderer, and has questioned basic facts about his acts as a war criminal.  It’s not about the pretext of the war, which she got wrong.  Its about her unsanctioned meeting with Assad and her refusal to own her actions.

Add that to her parroting Russian talking points, her anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-right wing autocrats positions and it makes sense why she’s embraced by the far right.   
It’s kind of weird that you don’t refute any of this but keep trying to support her positions.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

she is still dreamy......and crazy too. ....

 

[ren hoek]

This isn't new.  Check the date on this article.

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

Basically, Ukraine is the entire reason for the Syrian conflict. A bunch of Politicians from the EU and the US decided to bypass Europe's dependency on Russian gas by building a seperate oil pipeline through Syria. Democrats and Republicans were going to cash in bigtime by investing in the Ukrainian oil companies that would soon replace Russia as Europe's chief supplier.  

It's news to some people.  Some people think we were in northern Syria to protect the Kurds.

 

[ren hoek]

Sorry, just saw this.  Can you unpack why you think being an Iraq War veteran is related to whether or not someone is an "Assad apologist"?

Iraq, under Hussein, had virtually no diplomatic ties to Syria.

It makes it sound like she has loyalty to a perceived adversary.  I think that's a pretty gross insinuation without serious evidence for anyone, let alone a US military vet.  

 

[badmojo1006]

@Maurile Tremblay how much you get paid for these smears? I'm not interested in who it's from, I'm just curious how much.

You got proof of that or are you throwing out a baseless smear yourself?

 

[Henry Ford]

It makes it sound like she has loyalty to a perceived adversary.  I think that's a pretty gross insinuation without serious evidence for anyone, let alone a US military vet.  

It doesn't necessarily mean she has "loyalty" to a perceived adversary.  

 

[unckeyherb]

You have demonstrated that you don’t know what being an apologist means.  She refuses to denounce a mass murderer, and has questioned basic facts about his acts as a war criminal.  It’s not about the pretext of the war, which she got wrong.  Its about her unsanctioned meeting with Assad and her refusal to own her actions.

Add that to her parroting Russian talking points, her anti-gay, anti-Muslim and pro-right wing autocrats positions and it makes sense why she’s embraced by the far right.   
It’s kind of weird that you don’t refute any of this but keep trying to support her positions.

She’s not anti gay.  You are parroting talking points here.  Her family supported gay conversion therapy when she was younger.  She has since apologized and admitted that was wrong.   But I’m sure if don’t provide a link you’ll continue the smears.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-gay-lgbtq.html

 

[ren hoek]

The NYT just published a piece wondering out loud ‘what, exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard up to,’ as it links her to Russians, nazis, and “bot activity.”  It’s as if she’s a sinister front for someone or something else.  

That’s left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media.

Meanwhile, a CNN/AIPAC hack calls her a “puppet for the Russian government”.  Total degeneracy.  

The ‘apologist’ line is 100% about questioning her patriotism, and stigmatizing an antiwar position.  Except now it’s not just hardcore neoconservatives carrying water for the national security state (although they are too), but mainstream liberals and centrists.  

 

[Henry Ford]

She’s not anti gay.  You are parroting talking points here.  Her family supported gay conversion therapy when she was younger.  She has since apologized and admitted that was wrong.   But I’m sure if don’t provide a link you’ll continue the smears.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-gay-lgbtq.html

I think many people are concerned that she didn't change her views until she hit the national stage, eight years before her presidential run.  I am glad to see the past few years of continued growth (even in 2011 she was not as far along as she is now in her public statements) but need more than two presidential elections between wildly different views before I fully buy in that someone is changed enough to vote for them.  It's definitely an improvement, however.

Also, it wasn't just that her family supported gay conversion therapy.  She personally led fights against marriage equality and against an anti-bullying statute designed to protect gay teens and said some pretty horrible things.

 

[Henry Ford]

The NYT just published a piece wondering out loud ‘what, exactly, is Tulsi Gabbard up to,’ as it links her to Russians, nazis, and “bot activity.”  It’s as if she’s a sinister front for someone or something else.  

That’s left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media.

Meanwhile, a CNN/AIPAC hack calls her a “puppet for the Russian government”.  Total degeneracy.  

The ‘apologist’ line is 100% about questioning her patriotism, and stigmatizing an antiwar position.  Except now it’s not just hardcore neoconservatives carrying water for the national security state (although they are too), but mainstream liberals and centrists.  

Okay.  Then I guess conversation over.  Good talk.

 

[unckeyherb]

I think many people are concerned that she didn't change her views until she hit the national stage, eight years before her presidential run.  I am glad to see the past few years of continued growth (even in 2011 she was not as far along as she is now in her public statements) but need more than two presidential elections between wildly different views before I fully buy in that someone is changed enough to vote for them.  It's definitely an improvement, however.

Also, it wasn't just that her family supported gay conversion therapy.  She personally led fights against marriage equality and against an anti-bullying statute designed to protect gay teens and said some pretty horrible things.

So, no different than Hillary, other than Hillary held office while holding anti same-sex marriage views up until the very last second that it became politically expedient.  And she was the most qualified ever.  

She’s not anti gay.  To say that she is, as was stated above, isn’t reasonable.   It’s a smear.

 

[Henry Ford]

So, no different than Hillary, other than Hillary held office while holding anti same-sex marriage views up until the very last second that it became politically expedient.  And she was the most qualified ever.  

She’s not anti gay.  To say that she is, as was stated above, isn’t reasonable.   It’s a smear.

I didn’t say she isn’t qualified (though she isn’t as qualified as Clinton) and you may not know this but I don’t like Hillary Clinton very much either. 
 

Edit: Gabbard also held office while vehemently fighting against not only gay marriage but also civil unions. 

 

[-fish-]

She’s not anti gay.  You are parroting talking points here.  Her family supported gay conversion therapy when she was younger.  She has since apologized and admitted that was wrong.   But I’m sure if don’t provide a link you’ll continue the smears.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-gay-lgbtq.html

She supported it.  She changed her mind and apologized when she ran for office.  People say lots of things when they run for office.  
Again, actions have consequences.  She doesn’t seem to understand that.

 

[Mister CIA]

Would not vote for her for Animal Control Warden.  https://twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1184626850942857217

 

[huthut]

I feel like you could do one of those online quizzes:

Politician repeats nothing but Russia Today headlines, is given softball questions on Fox News while quoting right wing hacks, is a favorite of the alt right and white supremacists. Trump or Gabbard? 

 

[unckeyherb]

I didn’t say she isn’t qualified (though she isn’t as qualified as Clinton) and you may not know this but I don’t like Hillary Clinton very much either. 
 

Edit: Gabbard also held office while vehemently fighting against not only gay marriage but also civil unions. 

I’m aware you’re not a Clinton fan.  My point was that there are myriad examples of pols that were against gay marriage until they weren’t, former presidents included.  To say that she had some questionable beliefs-especially in the wash of today’s light is not, absolutely not, the same thing as saying she is anti-gay.  Would anyone call Hillary or Obama anti gay?  Of course not.  

 

[Henry Ford]

I’m aware you’re not a Clinton fan.  My point was that there are myriad examples of pols that were against gay marriage until they weren’t, former presidents included.  To say that she had some questionable beliefs-especially in the wash of today’s light is not, absolutely not, the same thing as saying she is anti-gay.  Would anyone call Hillary or Obama anti gay?  Of course not.  

Hillary and Obama didn’t stand on the floor of a legislature and fight a bill to protect gay teenagers by saying it was an insidious attempt to allow gay activists in public schools or do the same for civil union bills by saying it was an attempt to try to get the same thing as marriage without calling it that for a bunch of unnatural and unhealthy sick Americans. It takes time for that to fade. 

 

[ren hoek]

Where is our man @Franknbeans? 

 

[unckeyherb]

Hillary and Obama didn’t stand on the floor of a legislature and fight a bill to protect gay teenagers by saying it was an insidious attempt to allow gay activists in public schools or do the same for civil union bills by saying it was an attempt to try to get the same thing as marriage without calling it that for a bunch of unnatural and unhealthy sick Americans. It takes time for that to fade. 

How about 6 years of pro-LGBT voting records and 15 years since saying what you pointed out?  That’s half a lifetime ago.  Obama and Hillary were vocally against gay marriage just a couple years before running for president.  

 

[Henry Ford]

How about 6 years of pro-LGBT voting records and 15 years since saying what you pointed out?  That’s half a lifetime ago.  Obama and Hillary were vocally against gay marriage just a couple years before running for president.  

Yeah, like I said she appears to be putting her votes where her mouth is and that’s good. 
 

Again, it takes time for people’s opinions to change.  Edit: and I think she was still pretty vocal until 2011.

 

[Henry Ford]

Speaking of Clinton, people were still on her case about her “superpredator” statement from 1994 or 1995 last election cycle.  

 

[unckeyherb]

Speaking of Clinton, people were still on her case about her “superpredator” statement from 1994 or 1995 last election cycle.  

A few people were.  And none we’re making the leap to simply saying she was anti-black.  Insinuating loosely perhaps.  Flat out saying anti-black?  None.  Not even Rush/Levin/Hannity types.

 

[Henry Ford]

A few people were.  And none we’re making the leap to simply saying she was anti-black.  Insinuating loosely perhaps.  Flat out saying anti-black?  None.  Not even Rush/Levin/Hannity types.

I think that’s because “anti-black” isn’t really a term.  They just called her a racist. 

 

[unckeyherb]

I think that’s because “anti-black” isn’t really a term.  They just called her a racist. 

But they didn’t.  I didn’t hear anyone say she was racist.  No articles in the NYT, no panels on CNN, no legitimate pundits on Twitter.  No one called her a racist.  

 

[Henry Ford]

But they didn’t.  I didn’t hear anyone say she was racist.  No articles in the NYT, no panels on CNN, no legitimate pundits on Twitter.  No one called her a racist.  

I believe you that you didn’t hear it.
 

Yeah, people did.  Her opponent in the election called her a bigot. Repeatedly. 
 

Articles were written about the racism in her previous campaigns. It was a whole thing. 

 

[Franknbeans]

Pop smear

 

[Sand]

Speaking of HRC, she seems to be on the train that Tulsi is a Russian asset.  

Seriously, whisky tango foxtrot.  Tulsi certainly has her own independent positions, but talk about beyond the pale.  I didn't know it it was possible to hate that woman more, but she seems to have achieved it.  Deplorable.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Speaking of HRC, she seems to be on the train that Tulsi is a Russian asset.  

Seriously, whisky tango foxtrot.  Tulsi certainly has her own independent positions, but talk about beyond the pale.  I didn't know it it was possible to hate that woman more, but she seems to have achieved it.  Deplorable.

Suppose for a moment that you spent your entire career enabling a sexual predator in the hopes that doing so would pay off professionally.  And then when your big chance finally arrives, your reward is to go down in the history books as the person who managed to lose to the second-worst presidential candidate of all time.  You'd be pretty bitter and finger-pointy too, right?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Speaking of HRC, she seems to be on the train that Tulsi is a Russian asset.  

Seriously, whisky tango foxtrot.  Tulsi certainly has her own independent positions, but talk about beyond the pale.  I didn't know it it was possible to hate that woman more, but she seems to have achieved it.  Deplorable.

I’m not making any predictions but I think HRC is the Russian asset and she is performing quite well. The Russians like to play reverse psychology.

 

[HellToupee]

  And then when your big chance finally arrives, your reward is to go down in the history books as the person who managed to lose to the second-worst presidential candidate of all time.  You'd be pretty bitter and finger-pointy too, right?

Mike Dukakis & John Forbes Kerry want their due respect

 

[Phil Elliott]

Mike Dukakis & John Forbes Kerry want their due respect

Mondale : “Hey, can I get some respect here!”

 

[Norman Paperman]

Tulsi Strikes Back:

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton

. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...

... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...

... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

1.   

2.  

 

[Norman Paperman]

Mondale : “Hey, can I get some respect here!”

Only if "here" = Minnesota

 

[-fish-]

Would not vote for her for Animal Control Warden.  https://twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1184626850942857217

Gabbard using right-wing propaganda to bolster her campaign?   Color me shocked.   

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Tulsi Strikes Back:

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton

. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...

... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and ...

... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

1.   

2.  

Edit to add: