Tulsi Gabbard 2020

[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.

Of all the Dem 2020 candidates so far, do you think there's anyone that you and I would agree on? Or who we could both live with?

I will be voting for whoever the Dem candidate turns out to be in the general election - even if it's someone I have to hold my nose for - because I live in a swing state and my vote matters. And my top priority is unseating Trump. But at this stage where we get to still select among alternatives - I wonder if there is anyone we might both like well enough. Elizabeth Warren?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of all the Dem 2020 candidates so far, do you think there's anyone that you and I would agree on? Or who we could both live with?

I will be voting for whoever the Dem candidate turns out to be in the general election - even if it's someone I have to hold my nose for - because I live in a swing state and my vote matters. And my top priority is unseating Trump. But at this stage where we get to still select among alternatives - I wonder if there is anyone we might both like well enough. Elizabeth Warren?

There is no serious candidate that I would refuse to vote for in a general election.
I like Warren but I am afraid Trump will get her on the Indian thing. And this school loan holiday sounds desperate.

Klobuchar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of all the Dem 2020 candidates so far, do you think there's anyone that you and I would agree on? Or who we could both live with?

I will be voting for whoever the Dem candidate turns out to be in the general election - even if it's someone I have to hold my nose for - because I live in a swing state and my vote matters. And my top priority is unseating Trump. But at this stage where we get to still select among alternatives - I wonder if there is anyone we might both like well enough. Elizabeth Warren?

There is no serious candidate that I would refuse to vote for in a general election.
I like Warren but I am afraid Trump will get her on the Indian thing. And this school loan holiday sounds desperate.

Klobuchar?

Yeah, I'd vote for Klobuchar. I was enthusiastic about her before she got into the race - and now my only real reservation about her so far is that she doesn't seem to be running a very energetic campaign. But outside of that, sure!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

What does that have to do with Tulsi meeting the man responsible for the attack? She can be a pacifist without meeting someone using chemical weapons on his citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

What does that have to do with Tulsi meeting the man responsible for the attack? She can be a pacifist without meeting someone using chemical weapons on his citizens.

Who are you to say who can or should meet with you? You think congress people don’t meet with dictators? Senators don’t meet with dictators? Educate yourself or find better talking points at leSt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

What does that have to do with Tulsi meeting the man responsible for the attack? She can be a pacifist without meeting someone using chemical weapons on his citizens.

Who are you to say who can or should meet with you? You think congress people don’t meet with dictators? Senators don’t meet with dictators? Educate yourself or find better talking points at leSt.

The US has no diplomatic relations with Syria. There's a reason for that. Is Tulsi not a representative of the US? Or is she a lone wolf meeting with rogue states?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

What does that have to do with Tulsi meeting the man responsible for the attack? She can be a pacifist without meeting someone using chemical weapons on his citizens.

Who are you to say who can or should meet with you? You think congress people don’t meet with dictators? Senators don’t meet with dictators? Educate yourself or find better talking points at leSt.

The US has no diplomatic relations with Syria. There's a reason for that. Is Tulsi not a representative of the US? Or is she a lone wolf meeting with rogue states?

Got it. What candidate are you supporting, if I can ask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

What does that have to do with Tulsi meeting the man responsible for the attack? She can be a pacifist without meeting someone using chemical weapons on his citizens.

Who are you to say who can or should meet with you? You think congress people don’t meet with dictators? Senators don’t meet with dictators? Educate yourself or find better talking points at leSt.

The US has no diplomatic relations with Syria. There's a reason for that. Is Tulsi not a representative of the US? Or is she a lone wolf meeting with rogue states?

Got it. What candidate are you supporting, if I can ask?

I'll support the candidate who isn't Donald Trump. I don't like it when he meets with the head of rogue nations either, and Tulsi shouldn't be following his example.

[Anonymous]

Is Tulsi's religion an electability issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Tulsi's religion an electability issue?

Not for me -- I think it would be amazing to have a Hindu woman of color as our president.

is it an issue for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Tulsi's religion an electability issue?

Not for me -- I think it would be amazing to have a Hindu woman of color as our president.

is it an issue for you?

It doesn't for me. But, I'm in the whatever PA, MI, and WI want camp. Considering the conversations about Pete and Kamala and their electability it seems relevant.

[Anonymous]

Amazing this thread is as long as it is. She is a non-contender. Next!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Tulsi's religion an electability issue?

Not for me -- I think it would be amazing to have a Hindu woman of color as our president.

is it an issue for you?

It doesn't for me. But, I'm in the whatever PA, MI, and WI want camp. Considering the conversations about Pete and Kamala and their electability it seems relevant.

Not sure how electability cuts. Is one too white? Is one too old? Too young? Too black? Too gay? Too Hindu?

I cannot worry about it. I am voting for Tulsi.

[Anonymous]

Tulsi hits more diversity notes than any candidate in the race, if it matters.

Hindu, woman, color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi hits more diversity notes than any candidate in the race, if it matters.

Hindu, woman, color.

tulsi would make an amazing vp for Bernie.