Why is there so much hate here directed at Gabbard? I just can't figure it out ?

[Anonymous]

no one should be voting for her. period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. A lot of the candidate hate seems manufactured to me. It's just weird - I mean who is so invested in being anti-Bernie or pro-Bernie or anti-Tulsi?

Political junkies who post on political forums to discuss politics? If this seems strange to you, I suggest you find a cute cats forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. A lot of the candidate hate seems manufactured to me. It's just weird - I mean who is so invested in being anti-Bernie or pro-Bernie or anti-Tulsi?

Yes. And FFS, they need to find a new scapegoat already. Russia Russia Russia is getting so tired already. Honestly, people! If the Russians really could wield THAT kind of power, they'd be running the world already anyway.

Good grief.

Um, psst, Russia acknowledges that they are doing this. It isn't a scapegoat.

Agreed. But gaslighting PPs gonna gaslight.

Even with the maximalist take on ‘Russian meddling’ it’s a drop in the bucket. Hyping Russia is what dupes and their cynical masters do.

[Anonymous]

For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

+1

Probably would have stayed out of WWII too - which, as a Jew and a human being, I am glad isn't what America did

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. A lot of the candidate hate seems manufactured to me. It's just weird - I mean who is so invested in being anti-Bernie or pro-Bernie or anti-Tulsi?

Yes. And FFS, they need to find a new scapegoat already. Russia Russia Russia is getting so tired already. Honestly, people! If the Russians really could wield THAT kind of power, they'd be running the world already anyway.

Good grief.

Um, psst, Russia acknowledges that they are doing this. It isn't a scapegoat.

Agreed. But gaslighting PPs gonna gaslight.

Yup. And they do it ALL DAY LONG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. A lot of the candidate hate seems manufactured to me. It's just weird - I mean who is so invested in being anti-Bernie or pro-Bernie or anti-Tulsi?

Yes. And FFS, they need to find a new scapegoat already. Russia Russia Russia is getting so tired already. Honestly, people! If the Russians really could wield THAT kind of power, they'd be running the world already anyway.

Good grief.

Um, psst, Russia acknowledges that they are doing this. It isn't a scapegoat.

Agreed. But gaslighting PPs gonna gaslight.

Even with the maximalist take on ‘Russian meddling’ it’s a drop in the bucket. Hyping Russia is what dupes and their cynical masters do.

Pretending it is not big deal is what the people who benefit from the meddling do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dunno. A lot of the candidate hate seems manufactured to me. It's just weird - I mean who is so invested in being anti-Bernie or pro-Bernie or anti-Tulsi?

Yes. And FFS, they need to find a new scapegoat already. Russia Russia Russia is getting so tired already. Honestly, people! If the Russians really could wield THAT kind of power, they'd be running the world already anyway.

Good grief.

Um, psst, Russia acknowledges that they are doing this. It isn't a scapegoat.

Agreed. But gaslighting PPs gonna gaslight.

Even with the maximalist take on ‘Russian meddling’ it’s a drop in the bucket. Hyping Russia is what dupes and their cynical masters do.

Pretending it is not big deal is what the people who benefit from the meddling do.

yep

this thread feels like meddling, honestly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

+1

Probably would have stayed out of WWII too - which, as a Jew and a human being, I am glad isn't what America did

You’re both awful excuses for humanity.

And, you, are a disgrace to you race--the human race!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

+1

Probably would have stayed out of WWII too - which, as a Jew and a human being, I am glad isn't what America did

You’re both awful excuses for humanity.

And, you, are a disgrace to you race--the human race!

We are awful excuses for humanity for acknowledging that war is bad but sometimes better than the alternative? That there are moral duties to enter into war sometimes, when so much is at stake?

I'm not sure why you have to ask why there is so much hatred directed at Gabbard. You and she seem to believe genocide is fine; we'll just look the other way - hey, there's some good stuff on Netflix tonight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her campaign is using Russian troll tactics including a specific list of targets.

- She sucks up to dictators like Assad.
- She cheered on Putin while the Russians were deliberately bombing civilians.
- She doesn't disavow when her social media posts are amplified by RU state media

She should support dictators like the Saudis, al-Sisi, and the al-Thanis! Just like any stupid, slavish servant of our corrupt oligarchy!

You know, I have no idea if Gabbard is a "Russian asset" (seems far-fetched to me) and I don't claim any special knowledge of the correct position on Syria. But your point is well taken. The vast majority of Democrats are foreign policy amateurs, at best. They have no clue that their party (and the US) has a lonnnnng history of supporting dicators and undermining democracy abroad. It's sad.

Seems odd that you claim to know about the history of US foreign policy and think Democrats are foreign policy amateurs, but you have no position on current events. What's your position on the sinking of the Lusitania?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has a history of being Anti-Muslim. That’s a new n starter for me. So many other candidates offer to deliver the same promises without the anti-Muslim mindset.

Are people like you aware that there’s a long history of antipathy to Muslims in the American elite? HRC voted for the AMF, the Iraq War, spearheaded the Libya intervention, and wanted even more weapons to go to the Salafi Jihadis in Syria. These were all deleterious to vast numbers of Muslims lives, but somehow there’s no chorus on DCUM talking about HRC and other architects of America’s murderous policies as being anti-Muslim. What gives?

The American elite? lol. Many politicians make bad policy that impact Muslims. Tulsi fails to distinguish between terrorism and the religion itself. She blames a religion rather than understanding the causes of terrorism are complex. Other democrats understand the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

+1

Probably would have stayed out of WWII too - which, as a Jew and a human being, I am glad isn't what America did

You’re both awful excuses for humanity.

And, you, are a disgrace to you race--the human race!

We are awful excuses for humanity for acknowledging that war is bad but sometimes better than the alternative? That there are moral duties to enter into war sometimes, when so much is at stake?

I'm not sure why you have to ask why there is so much hatred directed at Gabbard. You and she seem to believe genocide is fine; we'll just look the other way - hey, there's some good stuff on Netflix tonight.

You give blanket defenses of today’s most murderous war machine (it’s also an economic cancer) because:
1. The world is messy
2. WWII and Jews

It’s sloppy, stupid stuff in defense of sick $hit. You both have serious problems. And claiming that criticism of today’s worst killing machine and bad arguments for it make me and Tulsi ‘believe genocide is fine’ shows you’re evil and/or seriously stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her campaign is using Russian troll tactics including a specific list of targets.

- She sucks up to dictators like Assad.
- She cheered on Putin while the Russians were deliberately bombing civilians.
- She doesn't disavow when her social media posts are amplified by RU state media

She should support dictators like the Saudis, al-Sisi, and the al-Thanis! Just like any stupid, slavish servant of our corrupt oligarchy!

You know, I have no idea if Gabbard is a "Russian asset" (seems far-fetched to me) and I don't claim any special knowledge of the correct position on Syria. But your point is well taken. The vast majority of Democrats are foreign policy amateurs, at best. They have no clue that their party (and the US) has a lonnnnng history of supporting dicators and undermining democracy abroad. It's sad.

The country should have stopped supporting Saudi Arabia after 9/11. But the Trump worship of MBS is sickening.

Decades of Presidents have been more subservient to KSA and Israel than any U.S. politician has ever been to Russia. If you hate foreign meddling, you should speak out against what’s done for Israel and Saudi.

One country SUPPORTING another country is not one country illegally and dishonestly interfering in another country's democratic election.

But yeah, the defenders of Tulsi all seem to be either Trumpist Republicans eager to defend Russia, or far lefties (also supported by Russia, BTW) eager to attack Israel. Not the best way to persuade everyone she is NOT favored by Russia.

So tell me how you feel about US intervention in Latin America?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her campaign is using Russian troll tactics including a specific list of targets.

- She sucks up to dictators like Assad.
- She cheered on Putin while the Russians were deliberately bombing civilians.
- She doesn't disavow when her social media posts are amplified by RU state media

She should support dictators like the Saudis, al-Sisi, and the al-Thanis! Just like any stupid, slavish servant of our corrupt oligarchy!

You know, I have no idea if Gabbard is a "Russian asset" (seems far-fetched to me) and I don't claim any special knowledge of the correct position on Syria. But your point is well taken. The vast majority of Democrats are foreign policy amateurs, at best. They have no clue that their party (and the US) has a lonnnnng history of supporting dicators and undermining democracy abroad. It's sad.

Seems odd that you claim to know about the history of US foreign policy and think Democrats are foreign policy amateurs, but you have no position on current events. What's your position on the sinking of the Lusitania?

because I'm smart enough to see when the masses on DCUM/FB/Twitter are posting content-less pileons based on a sudden apparent knowledge about foreign policy that is about as deep as their knowledge of I don't know, urban planning?