Tulsi Gabbard 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder why Russians are so big on Tulsi.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line. The CIA has called RT and Sputnik part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine."

"Her promulgation of positions compatible with Russian geo strategic interests can help them mainstream such discussion in the [Democratic] party," said Alex Stamos, former chief security officer at Facebook and now an NBC News analyst. Gabbard, said Stamos, helps them with all their "lines of attack."

You may think the “Russia thing” is a slur on Tulsi but it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

[Anonymous]

Fabulous Tulsi- what an amazing model for our young girls and women:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iw-njAmvZ80

[Anonymous]

For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

So that's your whole pitch to us? To me she still seems like a fringey spoiler, a la Jill Stein. Would you try to convince me otherwise or would you just consider me lost, like I consider Trump supporters lost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

So that's your whole pitch to us? To me she still seems like a fringey spoiler, a la Jill Stein. Would you try to convince me otherwise or would you just consider me lost, like I consider Trump supporters lost?

Well, you alleged a cozy relationship w Assad so thought you were concerned about Syria. Did you want more detail on Syria or a pitch for tulsi more broadly?

Check out her videos on twitter and see if they resonate. They do with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

You can advocate for peace and non-intervention without being an apologist for a butcher of a dictator, which is what al-Assad is. She doesn't sound particularly bright, and she sounds like a loose cannon.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats

Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region.

“Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.”

Democratic leaders were mum on the decision by one of their sitting lawmakers to meet with a dictator whom the US government has dubbed a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute barring unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. The US currently has no diplomatic relations with Syria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

You can advocate for peace and non-intervention without being an apologist for a butcher of a dictator, which is what al-Assad is. She doesn't sound particularly bright, and she sounds like a loose cannon.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats

Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region.

“Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.”

Democratic leaders were mum on the decision by one of their sitting lawmakers to meet with a dictator whom the US government has dubbed a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute barring unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. The US currently has no diplomatic relations with Syria.

Tawdry hit piece that mischaracterizes her positions. Establishment payback for supporting Bernie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

You can advocate for peace and non-intervention without being an apologist for a butcher of a dictator, which is what al-Assad is. She doesn't sound particularly bright, and she sounds like a loose cannon.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats

Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region.

“Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.”

Democratic leaders were mum on the decision by one of their sitting lawmakers to meet with a dictator whom the US government has dubbed a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute barring unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. The US currently has no diplomatic relations with Syria.

Tawdry hit piece that mischaracterizes her positions. Establishment payback for supporting Bernie.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you need to do to justify her support of a murderous dictator. al Assad has been using chemical weapons on his own people (confirmed by the UN). Most public officials have enough sense not to meet with war criminals. Tulsi won't even admit al Assad is a war criminal.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/10/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-bashar-al-assad-war-criminal/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you like the way the DNC forced a losing candidate down our throats?

Tulsi was a strong independent player to support Bernie in 2016. And she was right; Bernie would have beaten Trump.

This is PP: I voted for Hillary in the primary. I did not feel the DNC forced anyone down my throat. Bernie seemed to me then and seems to be still another spoiler - he's not even a Democrat. So telling me Tulsi supported Bernie then doesn't reassure me that she isn't a spoiler. I guess I am looking for what you think are the affirmative reasons for a skeptic to like her.

Perhaps it really does come down to - if you think the DNC kept Bernie from winning last time, you're drawn to Bernie or Tulsi or Yang now. If you thought Hillary was our best choice the last time, you're probably supporting someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

You can advocate for peace and non-intervention without being an apologist for a butcher of a dictator, which is what al-Assad is. She doesn't sound particularly bright, and she sounds like a loose cannon.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats

Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region.

“Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.”

Democratic leaders were mum on the decision by one of their sitting lawmakers to meet with a dictator whom the US government has dubbed a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute barring unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. The US currently has no diplomatic relations with Syria.

Tawdry hit piece that mischaracterizes her positions. Establishment payback for supporting Bernie.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you need to do to justify her support of a murderous dictator. al Assad has been using chemical weapons on his own people (confirmed by the UN). Most public officials have enough sense not to meet with war criminals. Tulsi won't even admit al Assad is a war criminal.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/10/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-bashar-al-assad-war-criminal/index.html

Tulsi would be the highest ranking military service person to be president since Eisenhower.

I think she knows what she is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you like the way the DNC forced a losing candidate down our throats?

Tulsi was a strong independent player to support Bernie in 2016. And she was right; Bernie would have beaten Trump.

This is PP: I voted for Hillary in the primary. I did not feel the DNC forced anyone down my throat. Bernie seemed to me then and seems to be still another spoiler - he's not even a Democrat. So telling me Tulsi supported Bernie then doesn't reassure me that she isn't a spoiler. I guess I am looking for what you think are the affirmative reasons for a skeptic to like her.

Perhaps it really does come down to - if you think the DNC kept Bernie from winning last time, you're drawn to Bernie or Tulsi or Yang now. If you thought Hillary was our best choice the last time, you're probably supporting someone else.

Well that’s interesting- I’ll think on that.

Bernie was- to my mind- only a spoiler because of the Clinton rules, ie superdelegates.

I deeply resented being told Bernie could not win because of the super delegates, and to support him was a spoiler type move.

But that is for what you shared - i think it is insightful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

You can advocate for peace and non-intervention without being an apologist for a butcher of a dictator, which is what al-Assad is. She doesn't sound particularly bright, and she sounds like a loose cannon.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats

Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region.

“Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.”

Democratic leaders were mum on the decision by one of their sitting lawmakers to meet with a dictator whom the US government has dubbed a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute barring unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. The US currently has no diplomatic relations with Syria.

Tawdry hit piece that mischaracterizes her positions. Establishment payback for supporting Bernie.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you need to do to justify her support of a murderous dictator. al Assad has been using chemical weapons on his own people (confirmed by the UN). Most public officials have enough sense not to meet with war criminals. Tulsi won't even admit al Assad is a war criminal.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/10/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-bashar-al-assad-war-criminal/index.html

Tulsi would be the highest ranking military service person to be president since Eisenhower.

I think she knows what she is doing.

I can respect her service while also thinking she has some wrong views on foreign policy. Being in the military doesn't mean that every decision you make is correct. Conferring her legitimacy on al Assad by meeting with him was a bad decision.

Here's a picture of a toddler hurt in one of his chemical attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who like Tulsi: what would you say to those of us who take her to be a fringey sort of spoiler who has an unconfortably cozy relationship with Assad? Would you just tell us that you WANT a fringey spoiler - or do you think you could convince us to take her seriously?

I’d tell them to look at the war in Syria and ask who we are fighting for, against, and if we have interests worth killing and maiming our soldiers.

I happen to think we don’t have vital interests and should not be there. I don’t think that is fringe at all. I think it’s prudent and increasingly bipartisan.

You can advocate for peace and non-intervention without being an apologist for a butcher of a dictator, which is what al-Assad is. She doesn't sound particularly bright, and she sounds like a loose cannon.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats

Democrats were silent on Thursday as Tulsi Gabbard, one of the party’s sitting lawmakers in Congress, announced that she had met with Bashar al-Assad during a trip to war-torn Syria and dismissed his entire opposition as “terrorists”.

Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, disclosed her meeting with the Syrian president on Wednesday, during what her office called a “fact-finding” mission in the region.

“Initially I hadn’t planned on meeting him,” Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that’s exactly what we talked about.”

Democratic leaders were mum on the decision by one of their sitting lawmakers to meet with a dictator whom the US government has dubbed a war criminal for his use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Gabbard’s trip raised alarms over a potential violation of the Logan Act, a federal statute barring unauthorized individuals from conferring with a foreign government involved in a dispute with the US. The US currently has no diplomatic relations with Syria.

Tawdry hit piece that mischaracterizes her positions. Establishment payback for supporting Bernie.

Yeah, sure. Whatever you need to do to justify her support of a murderous dictator. al Assad has been using chemical weapons on his own people (confirmed by the UN). Most public officials have enough sense not to meet with war criminals. Tulsi won't even admit al Assad is a war criminal.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/10/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-bashar-al-assad-war-criminal/index.html

Tulsi would be the highest ranking military service person to be president since Eisenhower.

I think she knows what she is doing.

I can respect her service while also thinking she has some wrong views on foreign policy. Being in the military doesn't mean that every decision you make is correct. Conferring her legitimacy on al Assad by meeting with him was a bad decision.

Here's a picture of a toddler hurt in one of his chemical attacks.

Would you want your son or daughter fight for that child (if what you are saying is even true- things being murky in that part of the world)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you like the way the DNC forced a losing candidate down our throats?

Tulsi was a strong independent player to support Bernie in 2016. And she was right; Bernie would have beaten Trump.

This is PP: I voted for Hillary in the primary. I did not feel the DNC forced anyone down my throat. Bernie seemed to me then and seems to be still another spoiler - he's not even a Democrat. So telling me Tulsi supported Bernie then doesn't reassure me that she isn't a spoiler. I guess I am looking for what you think are the affirmative reasons for a skeptic to like her.

Perhaps it really does come down to - if you think the DNC kept Bernie from winning last time, you're drawn to Bernie or Tulsi or Yang now. If you thought Hillary was our best choice the last time, you're probably supporting someone else.

Well that’s interesting- I’ll think on that.

Bernie was- to my mind- only a spoiler because of the Clinton rules, ie superdelegates.

I deeply resented being told Bernie could not win because of the super delegates, and to support him was a spoiler type move.

But that is for what you shared - i think it is insightful.

Get a grip.

Pledged delegates from primary voting: Clinton: 2,219 Bernie: 1,832

Clinton already beat Bernie, even if you didn't include the super delegates.

Bernie had 3.7m less votes than Clinton in the primaries. Further, Bernie lost the most populous and delegate-rich states: California, NY, Florida, and Texas.

I voted for Bernie in the DC primary, but he lost fair & square.